REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME · development and education agreements. The capac-ity...

This report presents the key findings, conclusions and recommendations of a study that was conducted to assess the capacities of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and its Member States (Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe) to implement international environment, sustainable development and education agreements. The purpose of the report is to inform and increase the relevance, effectiveness and impact of capacity building for policy implementation.

In partnership with

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME

Capacity Assessment for Environmental Policy Implementation

FUTURE CAPACITY BUILDING

FUTURE CAPACITY BUILDINGCapacity Assessment for Environmental

Policy Implementation

Suggested reference:

Mukute, M., Marange, T., Masara, C., Sisitka, H. and Pesanayi, T. (2012).

Future Capacity Building: Capacity Assessment for Environmental Policy Implementation.

Howick: SADC REEP.

Copyright

SADC Regional Environmental Education Programme 2012

The text of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or

non-profit uses, without special permission, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No

reproduction of this publication for sale or profit purposes is permitted without prior consent of the

SADC Regional Environmental Education Programme. All images remain the sole property of their

original source and may not be used for any purpose without permission from the source.

Proofreading: Kim Ward

Design: Francis Lotz

Layout: Dudu Coelho

Printing: Cadar Printers

ISBN 978-1-919991-80-1

ACRONYMS 04

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 06 01 INTRODUCTION

– Purpose of the study 10 – Context of the study 10 – Framing of the study 11 – Structure of this report 13

02 METHODOLOGY

– Research orientation 14 – Research methods 15 – Study limitations 15

03 FINDINGS

– Purpose of this section 16 – SADC's major capacity drivers 16 – SADC responses to meta-policy capacity drivers 17 – SADC capacity needs 18 – SADC capacity gaps 20 – Country capacity needs 20

04 KEY CONCLUSIONS

– Systemic capacity issues 45 – Priority sectors 46 – Institutional capacity gaps 46 – Individual/human capacity needs 46 – Capacity gaps of capacity building institutions 48

05 RECOMMENDATIONS

– Translation and review of international agreements 50 – Domestication of regional policies 50 – Human resources and institutional capacity development 51 – Monitoring, evaluation (M & E) and capacity assessment 51 – Institutional development of capacity building institutions 52

REFERENCES 53

ANNEX 1: List of people who participated in the capacity assessment 57

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 64

07

ACDF African Capacity Development FoundationADEA Association for Development of Education in Africa AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromeAMCEN African Ministerial Conference on the EnvironmentANAFE African Network for Agriculture, Agro-forestry and Natural Resources Management Education AU African UnionCAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous ResourcesCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCBNRM Community Based Natural Resources ManagementCCARDESA Centre for the Coordination of Agricultural Research for Development in Southern AfricaCCD Convention to Combat Desertification CDM Clean Development Mechanism CFC ChlorofluorocarbonsCoP Conference of PartiesCSOs Civil Society OrganisationsDEA Department of Environment DRC Democratic Republic of CongoEAP Environment Action Plan EEASA Environmental Education Association of Southern Africa EMA Environment Management AuthorityEMPs Environment Management PlansEMPS Environment Management Plans of SeychellesESD Education for Sustainable Development FANR Food Agriculture and Natural Resources FCCC Framework Convention on Climate Change GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment FacilityGHGs Green House GasesGIS Geographical Information SystemsGMOs Genetically Modified OrganismsHIV Human Immuno-deficiency VirusICT Information Communication TechnologiesIES Institute of Environmental StudiesIMF International Monetary FundIUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources of Fauna and Flora/

World Conservation UnionMDG Millennium Development GoalsMEAs Multilateral Environmental Agreements MEPD Ministry of Economic Planning and DevelopmentMESA Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability in African Universities and CollegesMICOA Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental ActionsMoE & NDU Ministry of Environment and National Development UnitMoF & ED Ministry of Finance and Economic DevelopmentMPD Ministry of Planning and Development

ACRONYMS

08

NCSAs National Capacity Self AssessmentNEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGOs Non Governmental OrganisationsNRM Natural Resource Management OECD Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development POPs Persistent Organic PollutantsRCEs Regional Centres of Expertise REEP Regional Environmental Education ProgrammeRISDP Regional Indicative Strategic Development PlanSADC Southern African Development CommunitySARDC Southern African Research and Documentation CentreSCARDA Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research for Development in AfricaSETA Sector Education and Training AuthoritySida Swedish International Development Cooperation AgencySIDS Small Islands Development StatesUN United NationsUNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environmental ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganisationUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNICEF United Nations Children's FundUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWB World BankWESSA Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa


09

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report discusses the key findings, conclusions and recommendations of a study that was conduct-ed to assess the capacities of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and its 15 Mem-ber States (Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe) to implement international environment, sustainable development and education agreements. The capac-ity assessment study was commissioned by SADC Re-gional Education Environmental Programme (REEP) and was conducted over a period of six months (May – October 2011).

SADC REEP is a project of SADC whose mandate is aligned with SADC Regional Indicative Strategic De-velopment Plan (RISDP) intervention area number 7 (Environment and Sustainable Development). The Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA) was chosen by SADC to manage the imple-mentation of REEP since its inception in 1996 (SADC REEP, 2010). SADC REEP is mandated to support Member States to implement environment, sustain-

able development and education policy; and one of its major intervention strategies is to facilitate capacity development.

The purpose of the study was to increase the rele-vance, effectiveness and impact of SADC REEP and related capacity building organisations in the region to support Member States to implement the Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). The spe-cific objectives of the study were to:

Identify capacity needs of the SADC region to imple-ment regional and global environmental and sustaina-ble development and education policy and associated national policies;

Identify constraints and enablers of implementing re-gional and international policy on environment, sus-tainable development and education policy and asso-ciated national policies;

Identify priority sectors and capacities in the SADC region; and

Make recommendations on how environment and ca-pacity building institutions in the region should help address priority capacity needs.

The report is organised into five sections: the Intro-duction which gives the background, purpose and framing of the study; the Methodology that discusses how the assessment was conducted; the Findings which provides information on capacity issues and needs in the region; the Conclusion that pulls out key issues; and the Recommendations for environment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

010 and sustainable development capacity building insti-tutions (including SADC REEP).

The assessment was conducted within the broader environmental policy context in which SADC envi-ronment, sustainable development and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) initiatives oper-ate: the African Union’s (AU) Action Plan for the En-vironment Initiative of 2003. The SADC RISDP is the region’s framework for integration and development and defines the environment and sustainable devel-opment targets, which include the implementation of MEAs. The capacity assessment study recognised and built on National Capacity Self Assessments (NCSAs) that were conducted under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the United Nations Development Pro-gramme (UNDP) covering the three Rio Conventions on climate change, biological diversity and combat-ing desertification. The study assessed capacities at systemic, institutional and human capacity levels at SADC and Member State levels. It worked with a definition of international convention implementation which covers (a) ‘Translation’ of MEAs into regional policies and protocols; (b) ‘Domestication’ of regional policies and protocols; (c) Development of associat-ed partnerships, structures and systems; strategies, action plans and programmes; (d) Carrying out of activities; and (e) Monitoring, evaluation and lesson-learning, reporting and feeding back into international agreements. The study focused on the following ten environmental sectors: Air Quality; Waste and Pol-lution; Hazardous Chemicals Management; Energy; Climate Change; Biodiversity and Natural Heritage; Sustainable Land Management; Forestry; Marine and Inland Water Resources; and Education and Training.

The capacity assessment was participatory and itera-tive involving a range of stakeholders from selected countries. The following research methods were used: document analysis; key informant and semi-struc-tured interviews; focus group discussions; regional workshop of SADC Directors of Wildlife, Tourism and Forestry; national data generation workshops; and a regional feedback workshop. Over 210 people (see An-nex 1) from 14 SADC Member States have contributed to the study.1

Research participants included SADC Members State policy makers, policy implementers and capac-ity builders/developers. Employing various methods of data collation and iterative processes enabled re-search rigour, cross-checking and validation of the data. Primary data was collected from countries that were purposively sampled. Seven countries (Malawi, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, Swazi-land, Botswana, Tanzania and Seychelles) were visited for primary data collection. Although South Africa and Namibia were among the initial list of selected coun-tries, they were not visited because they had recently conducted similar assessments in 2010 and 2011 re-spectively. The main study limitations were gaining ac-cess in time and inadequate representation of certain environment sectors by participants.

The study established the main systemic capacity issues in SADC as:

Poverty and the relatively high population dependence on direct use of natural resources;

Relatively low priority given to environment and sus-tainable development education in SADC and most SADC Member States;

Low national incomes (Gross Domestic Product) and prevalence of poverty leading to over-dependence on natural resources;

Poor alignment between donor priorities and those of SADC and SADC Member States;

High dependence on donor funding for the implemen-tation of MEAs in the region;

HIV/AIDS, which has eroded human capacities;

Social and military instability (current and recent), which compromises environmental governance and triggers rural-urban migration; and

Proneness to the negative effects of climate change due to geographical location (e.g. small island states).

The main institutional capacity needs identified are summarised in the following table:

1 We could not get direct input from Madagascar because it

was suspended from SADC membership during the study.


011

The mainstreaming of ESD into environment, sustain-able development and education theory, policy and practice was identified as a key cross-cutting issue that is essential for the development of the necessary human capacities. More specific cross-cutting ca-pacity needs were identified as:

Integrative skills that allow individuals to work with other sectors and other stakeholders in a participatory and symbiotic manner;

Environmental leadership skills that enable individu-als to move beyond their disciplines and mobilise distributed knowledge, skills and attitudes to address complex environment, sustainable development and education needs;

Resource mobilisation and accountability skills which enables individuals to identify and tap into interna-tional and local funds available for supporting fair and sustainable development;

Policy development and review skills that both enable

individuals to mainstream new developments in a co-herent and holistic manner; and provide a framework for different sectors to work together effectively;

Knowledge and values generation and brokering skills that enable individuals to draw on different ways of knowledge to address issues of technology devel-opment, environmental ethics, social and economic justice;

Risk management skills that enable the determination and management of risks in a proactive and strategic manner; and

Monitoring, evaluation and insight generation skills that allow for continuous learning and improvements that result in the improvement of practices, theories and methodologies, policies and operating contexts, including feeding into Conference of Parties (CoPs).

The study recommendations are addressed to environ-ment and sustainable development capacity building institutions in SADC, which include SADC REEP. The

Sector Reasons Human Capacity Needs

Climate change

Affects virtually all sectors. Affects food production systems.

Climate change modeling, climate change adaptation; Clean technology development, absorption and use; Risk and opportunity assessment; Space science; atmospheric sciences.

Land management

Most economies are agrarian. Majority of the region’s people dependent on land resources including soil, forests and woodlands.

Agro-ecological planning and management; Integrated land use planning and management; Extension and knowledge sharing; Adaptive and integrated land planning and management.

Inland and marine water resources

High population dependence on these resources. Important economy driver.

Earth sciences; Aquatic biology; Oceanic sciences; Fisheries and aquaculture; Watershed management.

Biodiversity High diversity and endemism; Important contributor to national incomes. Ecosystems as carbon sinks basis for sustainable development.

Biological sciences; Environmental economics; Intellectual property rights; Taxonomy; Law enforcement; Biosystematics; Bio-prospecting; Bio-safety; Community based natural resources management; Biodiversity managers.

Waste and pollution

Danger to human health. Environmental health and protection; Waste management researchers; Rural and urban planners; Environmental engineers; Toxicologists; Landfill designers; Clean technology development.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

012 key recommendations are that the capacity building institutions should:

Strategically contribute to SADC’s policy development and review processes;

Directly take part in the translation of regional policies and protocols into implementable plans;

Give more emphasis to institutional capacity develop-ment of relevant institutions of Member States, espe-cially national environmental education centres and programmes;

Review their own organisational and institutional de-velopment, given the dynamic nature of the issues to which they must respond over years; and

Conduct periodic capacity assessments of implemen-tation of MEAs and associated human and institution-al capacity needs.


13

PURPOSE OF THE STUDYThis report discusses emerging findings and recom-mendations of a study that was conducted to assess the capacities of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and SADC Member States to im-plement international environment, sustainable de-velopment and education agreements. The purpose of the study was to increase the relevance and effec-tiveness of SADC Regional Environmental Education Programme (REEP) and related capacity building institutions of the region to support Member States to implement the Multilateral Environmental Agree-ments (MEAs). The specific objectives of the study were to:

Identify capacity needs of SADC region to implement regional and global environmental and sustainable development and education policy and associated na-tional policies;

Identify constraints and enablers of implementing regional and international policy on environment, sustainable development and education policy and associated national policies;

Identify priority sectors and capacities in the SADC region; and

Make recommendations on how priority capacity needs should be addressed.

01 INTRODUCTION

Capacity profiling and capacity needs assessments are upstream activities that countries should conduct to in-form the development and implementation of projects and programmes intended to develop capacity.

— African Capacity Development Foundation,ACDF, 2011, p. 11

CONTExT OF THE STUDYThe study was commissioned by the SADC Regional Environmental Education Programme (REEP) which was initiated in 1993 to support Member States to implement environment, sustainable development and education policy, using capacity development as one of its major intervention strategies. The provisions of the SADC Protocol on Education and Training, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Action Plan on the Environment, and various natural resources and agriculture SADC Protocols and Dec-larations stress the importance of capacity building for ensuring effective implementation of international conventions and agreements (NEPAD, 2003; SADC RISDP, 2004). It was against this background that this study was commissioned.

The assessment covered SADC, which is made up of 15 countries: Angola, Botswana, Democratic Repub-lic of Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar (suspended during the time of the study), Malawi, Mauritius, Mozam-bique, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

INTRODUCTION

14 The broader environmental policy context within which SADC environment and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) initiatives operates is the African Union’s (AU) Action Plan for the Environment Initiative (EAP) of 2003 which was adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. According to UNEP’s fourth Global Environmental Outlook report, “The EAP seeks to address Africa’s environmental challenges, while combating poverty, and promoting socio-economic development”. It was prepared by the African Ministerial Conference on Environment (AMCEN), a pan-African forum for Ministers of Environment that was established in 1985. The forum provides a framework for Africa’s environmental policy orientation, while at the same time defending Africa’s interests at the international stage. In a sense, therefore, the EAP and the AMCEN help define Africa’s and, subsequently, SADC’s relations with the international community in matters of environment and sustainable development. According to the second Africa Environment Outlook report (UNEP, 2006), Africa’s environmental approach (which covers SADC) developed in the context of a Renaissance for the Environment and is guided by the thinking that:

Environmental policies need to be complemented by policies and programmes that address issues of poverty and equity, technology, research and develop-ment, trade and investment, and infrastructure devel-opment;

Environmental, economic and political interdepend-ence calls for regional cooperation, building on and sharing resources for the common good, and not putting the interests of one nation against another;

People – the focus of development – need to be seen not as a homogenous bundle but as specific groups and individuals, and policy needs to address their spe-cific needs; and

Mainstreaming natural resource management issues in all development initiatives to facilitate effective, ef-ficient and equitable use, and proper valuation of their contribution to sustainable development.

The SADC Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) is the region’s framework for integra-tion and development. It sets priorities, policies and strategies for achieving the long-term development

of SADC. The framework defines environment and sustainable development targets, which include the implementation of MEAs. Some of the targets for the RISDP, which are relevant to this study are:

Principles of sustainable development integrated into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental degradation by 2015;

Legal instrument for regional cooperation in environ-ment and natural resources finalised by 2006;

Environmental standards and guidelines developed and being implemented by 2008;

Strategy and programme for the management of the Brown Environment in southern Africa finalised and being implemented in 2005; and

Adoption of environment-responsive planning and implementation processes, regular environment and sustainable development capacity building and train-ing programmes in compliance with MEAs by 2007.

The purpose and targets of SADC’s RISDP as dis-cussed above provided an important rationale for con-ducting of the capacity assessment that SADC REEP commissioned.

FRAMING OF THE STUDYFreshwater and coastal ecosystems, including fisheries and wetlands, are especially important in small islands ... The initial guidance material for conducting the NC-SAs focused in a thematic assessment for each of the three ratified Rio Conventions (CBD, CCD, and FCCC). As the NCSA process evolved over the years, countries were encouraged to look into other environmental focal areas, particularly those that are related to the global environmental agenda ... Other key environmental pri-orities highlighted in the NCSAs include: air pollution: urban air quality; pollution in the urban environment; toxic wastes; hazardous chemicals; food security; dis-aster preparedness.

— UNDP, 2010, pp. 33-34

The study recognised and built on National Capacity Self Assessments (NCSAs) that were conducted un-der the Global Environment Facility (GEF) of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) covering the three Rio Conventions (UNDP, 2010). Its framing


15

was largely guided by the notions of capacity and implementation. The study drew on UNDP and Or-ganisation of Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment (OECD) definitions of capacity. According to the OECD, capacity refers to “the ability of people, organi-sations, and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully”. The UNDP (2010) defines capacity as:

Capacity is the sum of a series of conditions, intangi-ble assets, and relationships: all parts of an organisa-tion or a system being distributed at multiple levels. Individuals have personal abilities and attributes, or competencies that contribute to the performance of the system. Organisations and larger systems have a broad range of collective attributes, skills, abilities, and expertise, collectively termed capabilities. Capabilities can be both technical (e.g. policy analysis, natural re-sources assessment, financial resource management) and social-relational (e.g. mobilising and engaging ac-tors to collaborate towards a shared purpose across in-stitutional boundaries, creating collective meaning and identity, managing the tensions between collaboration and competition). Finally, capacity refers to the overall ability of a system to perform and sustain itself. (p. 20)

In this study we assessed three types of capacity: indi-vidual, institutional and systemic. Individual capacity is concerned with a person’s ability to perform tasks and is determined by one’s knowledge, skills and atti-tudes; institutional capacity refers to “overall perform-ance and functioning capability, such as developing mandates, tools, guidelines, and management infor-mation systems to facilitate and catalyse institutional change”; and systemic capacity is concerned with the operating environment, that is “overall policy, economic, regulatory and accountability frameworks, within which individuals and organisations operate”2. The study assessed capacities at four levels: human resources capacities at national level; institutional ca-pacities of national organisations that are tasked with implementing environment, sustainable development and education policy; and country capacities to pro-vide enabling environments. The fourth level of capac-ity assessed was pitched at the collective SADC. Since

there were bound to be many capacity needs, the study focused on priority capacity needs – the urgent and important capacities required for implementing MEAs (South African Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) report, 2010). Therefore the study sought to identify:

Individual capacity: human capacities for each prior-ity environmental, sustainable development and edu-cation sectors as linked to MEAs;

Institutional capacity: regional and country institu-tions that are mandated to translate and implement the conventions and agreements, their individual and inter-agency strengths and weaknesses, institutional policies and mandates, equipment and related ca-pacities; and

Systemic capacity: regional and country enablers and constraints covering infrastructure, economy, funding, political environment, over-arching policies and relations with other countries and regions.

The study also identified the following main internation-al agreements (‘Rio Conventions’ and related MEAs) to which SADC Member States are signatories and whose implementation was assessed (SADC, 2008):

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertifi-cation (UNCCD); The Basel/Bamako Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; The Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational International Water Courses (1997); and

Declaration on Education for Sustainable Develop-ment. The common theme that runs through all the conven-tions and MEAs and which underpins their essence is

2 These capacity levels and definitions are based on the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as used in

National Capacity Self-Assessments (NCSAs).

INTRODUCTION

16

sustainability, the ‘triple bottom line of development’, taking into account the planet, people and prosperity simultaneously. According to Pretty (1995), sustain-ability implies persistence and the capacity of some-thing to continue for a long time, resilience and the capacity to bounce back after unexpected difficul-ties. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United Nations acknowledged the importance of sustainability in development by making it one of the eight development goals. Increasingly, the principle of prosperity is being associated with the growing of green economies, while the people dimension is concerned with matters of social justice and a better distribution of environmental benefits and risks. The goal of the ESD is to integrate values, principles and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning towards environmental integrity, economic viability and a socially just soci-ety for the present and future generations (UNESCO, 2005).

The concept of implementation can be inferred from obligations of signatories of Rio Convention as dis-cussed by a UNDP report (Mugabe, Maya, Tata & Imbamba, 2000): (a) National domestication, which involves formulation or reform of policies, laws, and institutions and establishment of programmes at national levels; (b) Reporting progress to the Confer-ence of Parties; and (c) Participating in the further elaboration and enrichment of key policy issues and achievement of consensus on matters that are still unresolved. Consistent with UNDP thinking and in line with the kinds of capacities discussed above, the study viewed implementation as residing at both SADC and national levels. In the capacity assessment study, implementation included:

‘Translation’ of MEAs into SADC protocols;

Domestication of SADC protocols into national poli-cies, law and regulations;

Development of associated partnerships, capacities, structures and systems;

Development of strategies, action plans and pro-grammes;

Funding planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation;

Carrying out of activities on the ground; and Associated monitoring, evaluation, lesson learning and improvement.

Since the study was not merely interpretative (seeking to understand) but was actually concerned with the taking of action (interventionist), it is also important to discuss the concept of capacity development. The study includes how capacity development can be used to address challenges and gaps. The study worked with UNEP’s (2002) concept of capacity development:

A holistic enterprise, encompassing a multitude of ac-tivities [that include] building abilities, relationships and values that will enable organisations, groups and individuals to improve their performance and achieve their development objectives.

However, as one respondent pointed out, “We don't need more capacity development if it is not based on sound human capacity development principles. Neither do we need the forms of technicist capacity development that have been popular throughout the region.” One of the important principles is responsive-ness to the complex and changing social, environ-mental and economic contexts within which partici-pants live and work (Lotz, 1999).

STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORTThe report is organised into five main sections: Introduction, which sets the scene by defining the purpose and scope of the study; Methodology, that discusses how the study was con-ducted; Findings, which focuses on the information on ca-pacity issues and needs in the region;

Conclusion, which synthesises findings in relation to the purpose of the study; and

Recommendations on what capacity building institu-tions such as SADC REEP should do to address the human and institutional capacity needs identified by the study.


17

02 METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH ORIENTATIONThe capacity assessment was participatory in that it involved a range of stakeholders from several selected countries who assessed their capacity needs. It also involved SADC decision makers, who attended an Environment and Natural Resources Protocol work-shop in Johannesburg, South Africa, 9 - 11 May 2011. The study was iterative in that it provided for cross-checking of data generated which helped validate and improve the results. Rigour was also ensured through the use of various sources of information, notably doc-ument analysis, interviews, national workshops and a regional feedback workshop.

Stratified random sampling was used to select the countries to conduct national workshops and inter-views, which is consistent with qualitative research. The criteria for sampling countries to visit included the following considerations:

Recent history of social and military instability (DRC); Small island states (Seychelles);

Small inland states with high population densities and relatively high poverty (Malawi); Middle income states (Swaziland); Large semi-arid countries with small populations that are sparsely distributed (Botswana and Namibia – Na-mibia was not visited because it conducted a similar study in 2011); Inland countries with high dependence on land re-sources (Zimbabwe); Highly urbanised and industrialised countries (South Africa – not visited because it conducted a similar as-sessment in 2010); and States with large coastal areas and marine resources (Tanzania). Another important consideration was to have repre-sentation of French speaking (DRC) and Portuguese speaking countries (Mozambique).

METHODOLOGY

18 RESEARCH METHODSOver 2103 people took part in the study through participating in interviews, workshops and responding to questionnaires (Annex 1). Most of the participants were involved through national and sub-regional workshops. Policy makers, policy implementers and capacity building people comprise the majority of those who participated in the capacity assessment.

Document analysis: The main documents that were analysed include: relevant international conventions, agreements and protocols that SADC and its Members States have signed or ratified; relevant SADC regional protocols; Environmental Outlook reports; Country National Capacity Self Assessment reports; MDG reports; UNDP and UNEP global and sub-regional reports; other relevant regional and national Capacity Assessment Reports; and SADC strategic reports, assessments and plans. In addition to forming part of this report, data generated from document analysis was used to sharpen the tools used for generating primary data (interviews, focus group discussions in national workshops).

Semi-structured interviews: This research method was used to generate data from environment experts and decision makers from the seven countries visited (Swaziland, Botswana, Malawi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Seychelles and Tanzania), as well as the SADC Secretariat and SADC REEP staff. An average of seven people per country were interviewed, giving a total of 49 interviewees. In addition, two SADC REEP staff; four SADC REEP National Representatives; two SADC Food Agriculture and Natural Resources (FANR) Senior Programme Officers; three consultants of the SADC FANR and one from the African Network for Agriculture, Agro-forestry as well as the Natural Resources Management Education (ANAFE) southern African Chairman were interviewed. The total number of interviewees was 60. Some of the people who were interviewed also took part in the national data generation workshops.

National data generation workshops: This method was used in six of the countries that were visited (see

previous paragraph). The main purpose was to gen-erate primary data from selected Member States in a manner that allowed for some form of consensus, especially on capacity priority sectors. Each workshop lasted between two to four hours. Within each work-shop, focus group discussions, feedback sessions, ranking and scoring were used. About 150 people were involved in national workshops in Botswana, DRC, Malawi, Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Tanzania. In addition, 25 Directors of Environment, Wildlife and Natural Resources Management and environmental lawyers from 11 Member States provided insights in some of the regional level challenges of capacity building.

Regional feedback workshop: A draft of this report was sent to all the 15 SADC REEP National Representatives and REEP staff for their input. It was also presented to 13 of them, four SADC REEP staff, an attachment at SADC REEP and the Environmental Education Director of WESSA for regional collective feedback at a workshop that was held in Maseru, Lesotho on 2 October 2011. The total number of participants at the workshop was 19. Most of the National Representatives had already taken part in prior data generation processes.

STUDY LIMITATIONSThe main limitation was linked to obtaining the input of all key decision makers and experts in the environment, sustainable development and education sectors in the region. In particular, the study was unable to generate much primary data from countries that were not visited because of limited time and resources. Even in the countries that hosted interviews and workshops, it was difficult to ensure representation from all sectors, especially those from Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and the private sector. However, in the case of one country – Namibia, first-hand and recent information on capacity needs was obtained through a similar study that was conducted by Kisaka and others in 2011, and regarding South Africa, the study benefited from a Department of Environmental Affairs 2010 study.

3 Please note that a number of the people took part in the

study more than once and therefore this figure differs from

the figures in Annex 1.


19

03 FINDINGS

PURPOSE OF THIS SECTIONThis section discusses findings of the study in rela-tion to its objectives. The information is largely or-ganised at regional and country levels. At the level of SADC, the focus is on identifying the main drivers of capacity needs at individual (people employed at the SADC secretariat in the unit responsible for the environment), institutional (the structures and sys-tems that SADC has to translate international MEAs into regional protocols, strategies, and action plans) and systemic (the context that SADC is able to cre-ate, foster or sustain for the effective implementation of MEAs). At a country level, discussions of capacity also focus at these three levels as discussed earlier, outlining the notable strengths, systemic issues, in-stitutional capacity needs, individual capacity needs, and priority sectors.

SADC’S MAjOR CAPACITY DRIVERSSeveral factors drive southern Africa’s capacity needs: some global, others local. The growing global realisa-tion that the earth is a finite resource and that human beings may be exceeding its capacity to meet present consumption patterns, appears to be the primary causal explanation for capacity needs in SADC and elsewhere. This realisation has resulted in interna-tional events and MEAs that define a shared object towards sustainability, which is concerned with crea-tively working with meeting economic needs without compromising the environmental and social. MEAs are also underpinned by the intentions to link the lo-cal to the global, interconnect people and places while at the same time valuing their individual peculiarities. Inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary approaches as well as specialisation are also underlined in MEAs. The drivers for capacity needs in southern Africa can be clustered around three areas: meta-policy, ecologi-cal, and educational/technological (DEA, 2010). These are briefly discussed below.

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs): SADC and its Members States are signatories to sev-eral international environmental and sustainable de-velopment agreements which create obligations that have implications for human, institutional and system-ic capacities for them. For example, being a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity means that SADC has to develop regional protocols and policies, ensure that these are domesticated, as well as report on biological diversity and commitments made to-wards conserving it. It also means developing capaci-ties and acquiring the necessary tools for measuring biodiversity. Mainstreaming is one of the main fea-tures of domesticating environment and sustainable development agreements. This calls for integrative,

FINDINGS

20 socio-relational and partnership skills at individual levels. At a systemic level, this calls for a culture of participation and mutual accountability.

Ecological drivers: Land degradation, pollution of the atmosphere and climate change are some of the key drivers of capacity needs in southern Africa and else-where. In SADC, land is especially important because 35% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) comes from agriculture, and 70% of the region’s population depends on agriculture for food, income and em-ployment (Ashton & Ramasar, 2001). Environmental degradation, for example, requires that sustainable land use concepts and practices are developed and socialised. It also calls for the establishment of learn-ing and practice networks across countries to de-velop and spread innovations. Pollution and climate change on the other hand require the development of capacities to develop concepts, tools, technologies and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming and reduce the emission of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that cause the depletion of the ozone layer. Since both environmental degrada-tion and climate change have effects beyond national boundaries, there is often an imperative to collaborate with other nation states thus putting a demand on institutional and systemic capacities. In the case of biodiversity loss, many of the capacity challenges that have arisen include: information and knowledge on the status and trends of biodiversity; understanding, assessing and monitoring impacts of biodiversity loss; and poor understanding of economic uses and values of biodiversity (Mugabe et al., 2000). The need for bet-ter ways of sharing ecological “goods and bads” are of special interest at a systemic level and require global cooperation. For example, DEA (2010) noted:

Addressing water scarcity, poor water quality, and equi-table access to water, climate risk and opportunity, hu-man vulnerability to increased ecological degradation and loss of resources, loss of biodiversity and ecosys-tem functioning, lack of capacity to absorb waste and pollution; inadequate clean energy and equitable ac-cess to clean energy and land degradation and loss of soil productivity requires new skills. (p. 14)

Learning, research, science and innovation: Some of the drivers of capacity needs are that the taught cur-ricula in many countries are inadequately designed and implemented to ‘produce’ graduates that have

the required capacities to handle the complexities of present day and future challenges. This is where the tension between specialisation and trans-disciplinary approaches to curricula development and implemen-tation arises, and where working creatively with con-tradictions becomes imperative. Southern Africa’s in-stitutes of higher education in many cases do not have the necessary equipment and qualified personnel to build the capacities of under-graduates and graduates to meet these sustainability challenges. At institution-al and systemic levels, there is inadequate intentioned interaction between industry, learning institutions, government and civil society organisations and lack of funds, especially ‘patient capital’4, to support the de-sired kind of education, research and innovation.

SADC RESPONSES TO META-POLICY CAPACITY DRIVERSSADC has responded to these capacity drivers in a number of ways, which include taking part in Pan-African initiatives aimed at addressing environment, sustainable development and education matters. One such initiative is the Environment Action Plan (EAP) which has an associated Strategic Plan for Capacity Building. The other major response is the setting up of regional mechanisms that facilitate the translation of the MEAs into regional protocols and action plans; and the third strategy has been the development of such protocols and associated strategic and action plans to support their implementation by Member States.

At SADC level the institutions that are responsible for translating international environment, sustainable de-velopment and environment policies are:

A Commission, which is established to ensure the development and implementation of a protocol. It is made up of: a Committee of Relevant Ministers; a Committee of Senior Officers (Permanent Secretaries and Directors from Member States); and a Technical Unit (composed of experts on the subject); and The SADC Secretariat in the form of the Directorate

4 The African Capacity Development Foundation (ACDF)

(2011, p. 15) noted, “Capacity development requires ‘patient

capital’ because the outcomes in investments in capacity …

tend to come to fruition over the medium to long term”.


21 of FANR under which the Environment and Natural Resource Management Unit falls. The SADC REEP is a programme of FANR Directorate of the SADC Secretariat whose mandate includes promoting and supporting environment and education policy devel-opment and capacity development.

SADC has developed and signed protocols and frame-works on: Education and Training, Forestry, Energy, Fisheries, Wildlife, Trans-boundary conservation and management of natural resources, Trans-frontier Con-servation Framework; Shared Water Course Systems; and the Maputo Declaration on Prevention and Con-trol of Regional and in Southern Africa and its Likely Trans-boundary Effects.

Another important response that SADC has made is the identification and utilisation of centres of excel-lence. These include and are not limited to Centres of Excellence for the provision of human capacity re-lated to the UNCCD are: the Desert Research Founda-tion of Namibia; Tanzania’s Commission on Science and Technology for sustainable rural energy devel-opment; University of South Africa in Environmental Law; University of Zimbabwe, Faculty of Agriculture in rangeland management; Farmer Support Group in ap-propriate technology and indigenous technology de-velopment (SADC, 2008). SADC, in partnership with other organisations such as Southern Africa Research and Documentation Centre (SARDC) and UNEP also produce an Environment Outlook Report once every four years.

The Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA) is one of SADC’s centres of excellence in environment, sustainable development and educa-tion. It was for this reason that WESSA was assigned to host the SADC REEP by a Conference of SADC ministers. The United Nations Educational, Scien-tific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) identified SADC REEP as a centre of excellence in facilitating ESD, while the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies conferred the status of Regional Centre of Expertise on ESD on SADC REEP and its local partners. SADC REEP is good at facilitating the capacity development of practitioners and policy makers through conducting short-term training re-gional courses, the International Training Programme on ESD that it implements with a Swedish partner, materials development, facilitating cross-regional

networking, developing communities of practice and linking practitioners with policy and policy makers (Pesanayi, 2011). It enhances the capacity of policy makers through holding high level seminars and meetings, through supporting the development and popularisation of regional protocols and through producing policy briefs. SADC REEP supports insti-tutional capacity development through decentralising its historical functions and through facilitating the de-velopment and implementation of Change Projects in organisations and institutions, and supporting the es-tablishment of Regional Centres of Expertise (RCEs), which are implemented by multiple organisations. It has played a leading role, alongside UNEP in the pre-liminary efforts at Mainstreaming Environment and Sustainability in African Universities and Colleges (MESA) (Ketlhoilwe, 2011).

SADC CAPACITY NEEDSSADC has the capacity to translate MEAs into re-gional policies and programmes largely because its Member States use their collective capacities in the form of experts and policy makers (the Commission). However, there is inadequate capacity at the Secretar-iat level because only two officers employed by FANR are responsible for environment and sustainable de-velopment issues. Of the 54 staff employed by SADC FANR Directorate, only 10 are core staff – the rest are project staff (SADC REEP is considered as a project). Core members of staff are so few largely because SADC has a policy to pay them from Member States’ contributions which are not high enough to sustain a bigger and more appropriate staff complement. The study established that the main systemic capacity needs faced by SADC are relatively low budgets for im-plementation of MEAs as a result of low prioritisation of environment in regional and most national agendas (meaning low political commitment). During the Joint Technical Committee Meeting of Di-rectors of Environment, Forestry and Wildlife that was held in Johannesburg in May 2011, the following insti-tutional capacity needs were identified at SADC level:

Environment and natural resources management is not treated as a priority in SADC. As a result when donors are prepared to invest in the environmental sector, they are directed to other sectors, resulting in them either keeping their money or redirecting it to official regional priorities;

FINDINGS

22 The Ministers of Environment do not have the clout to make decisions with budgetary implications at SADC, because such power resides in the Ministers of For-eign Affairs, and of Finance; and The staffing levels of the Environment and Natural Resource Management (NRM) units at the SADC sec-retariat are very low, with only two professionals. At the same time, the Environment and NRM units are subsumed under the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate, where the budget is skewed towards agriculture. Consequently, SADC Secretariat capacity to serve Member States in the areas of en-vironment and sustainable development has dimin-ished. This in turn has resulted in a kind of ‘regres-sion’ as evidenced by:n The stature of SADC and its capacity to persuade the international community at negotiation declined and SADC positions have become hard to sell;n Lost funding opportunities such as for the manage-ment of the Limpopo Trans-frontier project as there was no capacity to develop a quality proposal in the given time; andn The Secretariat has been unable to timeously com-municate to Member States efficiently and on time, or support the drafting of protocols, programmes and action plans.

In addition, Mugabe et al. (2000) identified two capac-ity limitations that are commonly found in Africa (and therefore in SADC as well), which are to do with weak relational agency between environmental institu-tions and low coherence between the environmental policies (people, institutional and conceptual relation-ships):

Second, all African countries seem to have limitations associated with configuring their overall and sectoral agencies in such a way as to ensure that they articu-late together and effectively and efficiently mobilize and utilise human, financial and informational capitals that are in short supply … Third, the formulation and implementation of systemic environmental policies (policies that explicitly recognize and are founded on understanding of interconnectedness of various envi-ronmental facets – air, land, water, biological diversity, etc.) form another major limitation of most if not all Afri-can countries … Some of the natural resources policies run counter to the provisions of overall environmental policies. (p. 15)

Similarly, the AU’s Action Plan for the Environment Initiative (EAP) of 2003 identified several institutional capacity needs faced by SADC and other African sub-regional groups. These include:

Capacity to develop policy frameworks for the effective implementation of international and regional conven-tions; Preparation and implementation of comprehensive legislation to address the complexity of issues covered in international conventions; Institutional mechanisms that allow for adequate im-plementation; and Regional and sub-regional cooperation in trans-boundary resource matters.

Matiza-Chiuta, Sanyanga and Nyatsanza (2010) also identified another set of institutional capacity gaps, which are specific to SADC. These include capacity gaps to develop:

Land tenure systems that give incentives to commu-nities and the private sector to conserve forests and other natural resources; Mechanisms to regulate, the ownership, access to, and sharing of benefits from trade in international trade in genetic resources; Mechanisms, tools and skills for the correct valuing of biological resources; Incentives for biodiversity conservation and its sus-tainable use; and Ways to efficiently acquire, absorb and use sound and clean technologies that support sustainable develop-ment and forecasting.

From capacity limitations identified in the above para-graph, it appears that SADC is not getting optimum benefits from its natural resources and is missing out on proper and adequate use of green technolo-gies that may be available on the market. These in-stitutional capacity gaps are therefore impinging on SADC’s systemic capacity issue of economic and budgetary support for environment and sustainable


23

development initiatives. The potential contributions of correcting this gap appear so high that it is an area worth prioritising. SADC REEP CAPACITY GAPSThe assessment study identified several capacity gaps in SADC REEP which have implications for broader capacity building in relation to the findings of this study. These can be clustered around curricula, focus of capacity building, profile and visibility. The study noted that curricula of SADC REEP courses have tended to focus mainly on educational applications within the education, agriculture, natural resources management, water and forestry sectors with less emphasis on the areas such as climate change and waste and pollution. This focus is, however, related to its location under the SADC Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate. Climate change has become a key focus of activities in the SADC REEP in the most recent three-year funding cycle, as it has also been emphasised at SADC FANR level and by Sida in recent policy discussions. The initial focus of capac-ity building has over-emphasised capacity building at practitioner level and this has limited potential impact due to institutional constraints. To address this and broaden the level and focus of capacity development will require a higher level budget framework than that allocated to the SADC REEP over the years. A specific concern raised in the study was that SADC REEP was not supporting the development of national environ-

mental education centres as was originally planned by those who formed it. However, change projects and RCEs are intended to address this gap. SADC REEP has tended to work with and through middle manage-ment in member countries (national representatives), not through the heads of institutions such as the Per-manent Secretaries5 and this appears to be limiting its profile and visibility. In some cases this is worsened by lack of a diplomatic status, which is often accorded to SADC Secretariat. Support from core FANR staff in building an appropriate profile and visibility is some-times compromised by inadequate communication, which in turn is attributable to understaffing at FANR, and the ‘off site’ location of the SADC REEP (it is not located at SADC headquarters in Botswana).

COUNTRY CAPACITY NEEDSThis sub-section focuses on the capacity needs that were identified in each SADC Member State. For each country, the report discusses systemic, institutional and individual capacity needs as identified by this study and other previous associated studies. It also discusses the main suppliers of human capacity de-velopment as well as the priority sectors for capacity development.

5 However, it is worth noting that invitations of National Net-

work Representatives to meetings and facilitation of national

Policy Seminars are done through Permanent Secretaries.

FINDINGS

24

ANGOLA

Angola has a strong culture of cross-ministry programme and project implementation in the environment and sustainable development sectors (e.g. in the fight against sea pollution). It has collected and ex situ preserved 33 000 varieties of agricultural species (Republic of Angola, Ministry of Environment, 2009). The subject of environment introduced in the basic level education curriculum and reinforcement of ideas on environment and natural resources into different sciences of nature (Republic of Angola, Ministry of Fish-eries & Environment, 2002). The government of Angola is consolidating democracy, revising and develop-ing policies and legislation based on people participation (ibid.). This has led to the development of a new Constitution in 2010. But the effects of military and political instability are still present.

The systemic capacity issues that Angola faces arise largely from its military war and political instability which lasted for about three decades and resulted in infrastructural damage, undermined environmental governance and severely diminished human capacity to manage biodiversity and related resources. Con-sequently, Angola has poor and inadequate sewerage facilities, solid waste removal and treatment, water supply systems and vandalism of water supply systems in cities (Government of Angola & UNDP, 2005).This is worsened by an influx of rural populations into towns and unplanned settlements in protected areas and ecologically sensitive habitats. High population direct dependence on natural resources linked to low levels of industrial development creates systemic capacity issues, with 80% of the population using biomass energy (Government of Angola & UNDP, 2005); and the associated consumption of about 5 million m3 and 7.2 million m3 of firewood and charcoal respectively (Republic of Angola, Ministry of Environment, 2009). Angola has high biodiversity levels and a significant number of endangered species that need ca-pacity and mechanisms for protection. Funds allocated for implementing environment, sustainable devel-opment and education policies are low, especially given the wide range of associated challenges, the vast size of the country and the marine resources under its jurisdiction.

Angola has several institutional capacity needs. These include the capacity to develop and enforce mechanisms for the control of oil mining and transportation and for controlling and preventing damages likely to be caused by hazardous chemicals. At the same time, it lacks mechanisms and strategies for reforestation in a country where deforestation rates are high. In addition, Angola does not have adequate capacity to supply the needed specialisation and trans-disciplinary human capacity needs that are necessary for the country to implement the commitments under review (Republic of Angola, Ministry of Environment, 2009). Industrial capacity to develop and supply clean technology is low and the information management systems in government institutions are inadequate. In the area of biodiversity management, the main institutional capacity needs are associated with inadequate data collection structures and systems; inadequate supply of graduates with biological sciences; limited facilities to monitor and control biodiversity, timber exploitation and use of mangroves, coastal areas and fish resources. Angola’s limited monitoring control capacities are evident in lack of bio-safety structures and systems, and limited government capacity to control settlements on coastal areas, and mining of sand near cities (ibid.). Mugabe et al. (2000) noted that Angola lacked capacity to assess land degradation. Other important institutional capacity needs are associated with climate change. These include: facilities for monitoring and predicting long term weather patterns, mechanisms for enabling climate change mitigation and adaptation, and government capacity to tap into international mechanism that support mitigation and adaptation (UNDP, 2011). ESD is partly undermined by a lack of funds to translate relevant literature into local languages – Umbundu, Kikongo, Tchokwe and Kimbundu (Republic of Angola, Ministry of Environment, 2009).

The human capacity needs of Angola range from basic to complex skills. Angola needs technical capacities to be able to enforce its legislation, and this limitation is pronounced in terms of number of people to


25

implement. It also needs technicians and professionals in the areas of biological sciences, environmental health, environmental law, environmental economics, land managers, information managers, curriculum developers, extension workers, climatologists, and technologists. In addition, it requires people who have integrative skills that allow for trans-disciplinary thinking and action. The main cross-cutting capacity needs are associated with environmental governance; information management; and monitoring and evaluation.

The four priority sectors for Angola appear to be Waste and Pollution Management; Biodiversity Manage-ment; Forestry, Marine and Inland and Water Resources.

BOTSWANA

Botswana is a vast country with a relatively low population. A good part of the country is semi-arid. Al-though Botswana produces several Green House Gases (GHGs), its ecosystems absorb more gases that it produces (Government of Botswana, 2007). The country stopped the use of Persistent Organic Pollutants (ibid.). On the energy front, Botswana introduced the Renewable Energy Based Rural Electrification Pro-gramme (Government of Botswana, 2010). It is one of the few countries whose private sector contributes significant funds to natural resources management.

The systemic capacity issues faced by Botswana are ecological, socio-political and economic. Botswana’s economy is heavily dependent on mining, which produces toxic waste. At the same time, there are high transactional costs of trans-boundary agreements and differences in capacities and commitments be-tween nations. In terms of energy use and deforestation, 23% of the urban population and 77% of the rural population is dependent on fuel wood for energy. Politically, environment is low on the country’s development agenda (Government of Botswana, 2007), while socially, the high level of HIV and AIDS is killing skilled personnel and the low levels of environmental awareness among the public and the media undermine effective implementation of MEAs (Government of Botswana & UNDP, 2010). Ecologically, the harsh agro-ecological conditions, coupled with animal overpopulation, high incidence of bush fires, and proneness to negative climate change impact make Botswana a difficult place to adequately implement MEAs. In addition, Botswana is a vast country with a low population that is spread across much of the country, which leads to high infrastructural development costs per person.

The main institutional capacity needs of Botswana are associated with alignment and coordination of ministries and departments that deal with biodiversity management, range resources and forestry; the management of conflict between wildlife and livestock; and information management systems on biodi-versity. Botswana lacks facilities for disposal of toxic waste (such waste is exported to South Africa for safe disposal) (Government of Botswana, 2007) and has no national inventory of unused Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) stocks. It has inadequate mechanisms for the devolution of tenure and user rights to communities and lacks guidelines for trans-boundary natural resources management (ibid.). In addition, the country has no specific legislation to regulate GMOs (Government of Botswana & UNDP, 2010). The country also needs facilities and systems for climate change monitoring and prediction and dependable early warning systems (Government of Botswana, 2007). The supply of climate change specialists is very low. This study established that environmental protection law is fragmented while local government and the border posts are insufficiently staffed to implement environmental health regulations.

The identified human capacity needs range from law enforcers and bio-safety technicians to system man-agers and conflict management facilitators to environmental lawyers (who also specialise in Intellectual

FINDINGS

26

Property Rights), biological scientists, climate change modellers, climate change adaptation specialists and reviewers of environmental impact assessments (Government of Botswana, 2007). This study identi-fied the need for environment health specialists who currently have no PhD holders among them. The specific cross-cutting capacity needs that can be inferred from the findings are capacity to: collect, man-age and exchange information; define the role of sub-national and local governance structures in environ-mental management; negotiate at the Conference of Parties; coordinate multiple sectors; plan and carry out monitoring activities. This study established that Botswana is generally still grappling with the concept of ESD. The University of Botswana is the only institution that offers environmental education. Lack of en-vironmental education was identified as a major constraint to be addressed in the National Conservation Strategy (SADC REEP, 2010).

The priority sectors for Botswana appear to be Climate Change; Sustainable Land Use Management and Biodiversity.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (DRC)

The DRC has made strides in the implementation of MEAs but its recent history of armed conflict and political instability holds back progress in some areas. Some of the noteworthy achievements made by the DRC are the development and implementation of the 2002 Forest Code that sets the framework for more equitable and balanced forest management including protection of the forest and indigenous peo-ples’ interests (University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, 2008); the implementation of “Sani-tised villages and schools university” coordinated by the UNICEF is an initiative that aims to develop local technical know-how to help ensure long-term maintenance of water infrastructure (UNEP, 2011); and the strengthening of the Congolese Nature Conservation Institute with funds from external donors (IMF, 2010). DRC has the highest animal biodiversity in Africa, with 415 mammal species out of 756 in Africa but 38 of them are threatened, and 1096 known bird species, 26 of which are threatened (GEF, Government of DRC & UNDP, 2007). It also has about 15% of its land designated as protected area.

The systemic capacity issues faced by the DRC are similar to those of Angola. Armed conflicts contributed to environmental degradation and the breakdown of legal and institutional frameworks, which are criti-cal to environmental management (DRC Ministry of Environment Conservation of Nature and Tourism, 2010). Poverty coupled with unclear property rights (85% of court cases deal with land disputes accord-ing to a UNESCO & UNEP report of 2005) make it difficult for the population to invest in sustainable land use management and land degradation is worsened by unplanned settlements in fragile areas such as coastal areas and cultivation of river banks and lake shores which cause sedimentation and disturb fish habitat (DRC Ministry of Environment Conservation of Nature and Tourism, 2010). Mining rights take precedence over farming and forestry (UNEP & UNESCO, 2005). Sewage infrastructure in Kinshasa is inadequate and is worsened by conflict-driven urban influx (UNEP, 2011). Siltation of major dams that generate hydro-power (Inga, Ruzizi and Lutshurukuru dams) is a major problem (ibid.). However, improve-ment of water and sanitation is a top government priority. The problem is that a good part of the funding for environment related projects comes from donor funds. For example, the water and sanitation sector is largely supported by donors such as Belgium, France, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank (University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, 2008). But there is weak alignment between donor and country priorities (IMF, 2010). High levels of poverty, especially among women, drive the population to over-dependence on natural resources. For example, wood and charcoal provide 80% of all domestic energy consumed in the DRC. Ecologically, the periodic droughts in the south and seasonal flooding in the east cause natural hazards (University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, 2008) while low yields


27

due to poor land husbandry and depletion of agro-genetic potential result in low coping mechanisms among rural populations (GEF, 2009).

DRC’s institutional capacity needs are strongly linked to its systemic needs implied in the above para-graph. It needs capacity for legal and institutional reform. Government departments need capacities to implement their mandate and ensure adequate regulatory oversight. DRC also needs capacity to manage corruption and criminality around high value natural resources of the country partly because it lacks ca-pacity to complete and enforce forestry legislation (DRC Ministry of Environment Conservation of Nature and Tourism, 2010). At the same time the country needs equipment and infrastructure for adding value to timber and other forest products (ibid.). DRC needs mechanisms and facilities for measuring and storing air pollution data as well as for monitoring the movement of hazardous chemicals (University of Gothen-burg, Department of Economics, 2008). Ministries and organisations involved in the water and sanitation sector lack capacity to implement their mandates and ensure regulatory oversight (UNEP, 2011). This is partly because there is no Water and Sanitation Development Strategy, and could be worsened by lack of mechanisms to determine how the large pool of retiring water professionals will be replaced. Govern-ment lacks capacity to enforce its environmental legislation, including that which prohibits cultivation of ecologically fragile areas such as lake shores and river banks (ibid.). Similarly, government needs capacity to develop, manage, and monitor land projects and programmes, and to effectively coordinate the work of ministries and departments that are involved in the management of natural resources (GEF, Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo & UNDP, 2007). There are similar challenges concerned with biodiver-

FINDINGS

28

sity management as national, provincial and local government structures, community and NGOs’ capacity to manage biodiversity partly because of low funding and the country’s low capacity to develop human capacity in conservation management (UNESCO & UNEP, 2005). Sustainable land use management is un-dermined by under-resourced agricultural extension institutions that lack basic means to deliver services to farmers locally, and this contributes to the limited capacities for adaptation among farmers (GEF, 2009).

In terms of human capacity needs, DRC needs environmental health technicians, law enforcers, agricul-tural extension staff and natural resources managers; systems managers, rural and urban planners; and environmental health scientists, chemical engineers, water engineers, biological scientists (terrestrial and aquatic). DRC also has a short supply of environmental economists (and entrepreneurs), environmental lawyers (including those specialising in property rights), rural planners, agricultural experts; and meteor-ologists as well as climate change adaptation analysts.

The priority sectors for the DRC appear to be Forestry; Marine and Inland Water Resources; and Sustain-able Land Use Management.

LESOTHO

Environmental management has been part of Lesotho’s legal system for a long time, as stated in the Laws of Lerotholi, which were based mostly on cultural norms to guide environmental management, range resources and land (Government of Lesotho, NES, 2000). Among other strategic plans and programmes that arise from MEAs, Lesotho has developed the National Biodiversity Action Plan and the Wetlands Man-agement Programme. Groundwater quality is generally good in most parts of the country (Government of Lesotho, 2003). The significance of Lesotho’s strengths in environmental management can be traced back to its environment and land management sector management responsibility within SADC before the secretariat was centralised.

The main systemic capacity issues in Lesotho are poverty which results in the overexploitation of biologi-cal resources (Government of Lesotho, 2007). For example, Lesotho has a high population dependence on biomass energy (www.undp.orgIs/Energy_Environment/index.htm). HIV and AIDS is another systemic issue which erodes human capacity in the environment and other sectors (Government of Lesotho, 2007). Furthermore, Lesotho depends on South Africa and other countries for the supply of a range of environ-mental human capacity skills. Ecologically, Lesotho’s topography and soils make it prone to soil erosion, which causes siltation of water bodies (Mosenene, 2002) while its geographical location makes it prone to climate change. Budget allocation for the environment sectors under review is generally low and this results in relatively low institutional capacities to deliver on mandates (Government of Lesotho, 2007).

Lesotho has inadequate infrastructure for water distribution, lacks capacity in the monitoring of agro chemical run-off and in the management of surface water pollution caused by the release of industrial ef-fluents (Government of Lesotho, MDG Report, 2003). At the same time, it needs information management systems on hazardous waste as well as chemical storage and disposal facilities (Makhiba, 2006). Nature conservation legislation and a regulatory framework for trade in biological resources needs strengthen-ing, so does the link between biological conservation and sustainable nature-based income generating activities. Monitoring, assessment and rehabilitation of ecosystems, including wetlands is weak and this is partly explained by a low levels of capacity in research, monitoring, data collection and analysis, which in turn is attributed to low government staffing levels (Government of Lesotho, 2007). Communal land ten-ure system is not aligned with sustainable use of land and range resources. Policy makers and the public


29

are not sufficiently aware of the provisions of major environmental conventions. Lesotho does not have a national policy or legal framework on climate change (ibid.).

The human capacity needs of Lesotho include range managers, foresters, environmental educators and trainers, agricultural extension workers and agro-ecological specialists. Lesotho also needs environmental health technicians and inspectors, environmental engineers in the water and sanitation sector. Other spe-cialists required are biological scientists, environmental lawyers, information managers, systems think-ers, meteorologists and climate change adaptation scientists. The main cross-cutting capacity needs are concerned with technology development and transfer, incorporation of convention objectives into national policy and legislation, and planning and managing monitoring and evaluation processes.

The priority sectors for Lesotho appear to be Sustainable Land Management; Inland Water Resources; and Forestry.

MADAGASCAR

Madagascar is endowed with a wide range of biological diversity and high rate of endemic species – of the more than 200 000 known species found in the country, about 150 000 are endemic (www.madagascar.org). Fisheries and aquaculture are pillars of the economy. But invasive fish species have outcompeted some of the inland and freshwater fish species.

The current main systemic issue is the legitimacy of the present government, which was unconstitution-ally established in 2009. This resulted in the suspension of Madagascar from SADC and withdrawal of donors such as USAID from funding certain environmental and developmental projects. High population dependence on biomass fuel has been worsened by increases in the price of oil and fuel. Fire destroys about 1% of Madagascar’s remaining forest annually and forest destruction has been exacerbated by the government decision to allow export of endangered rosewood in January 2010 (www.madagascar.org). Because of topography, Madagascar has high levels of soil erosion in the central highlands.

Madagascar’s institutional capacity needs include communication and collaboration between govern-ment sectors as well as between them and other players such as civil society organisations and the private sector, mechanisms and personnel to monitor and control the over-exploitation of its natural resources such as timber and fish. It lacks mechanisms and personnel to control fires, which destroy forests an-nually. The state’s capacity to replace deforested vegetation is low. The average age of public buses in Madagascar is 11 years and this is because the country lacks capacity to import new ones. This results in high levels of pollution from traffic (www.myclimate.org).

Madagascar needs human capacities in the form of foresters, forestry extension workers and law enforc-ers; agricultural extension workers and agricultural specialists such as agronomists. The other groups of specialists needed are terrestrial and aquatic biological scientists and ocean scientists; environmental lawyers and environmental economists; meteorologists, climate change modelling specialists and adapta-tion specialists. The country’s cross-cutting capacity needs are strong in the areas of negotiating at Con-ference of Parties, coordination of multiple sectors and actors, developing and enforcing policy, legislation and regulation, planning, monitoring and evaluation processes.

The priority sectors for Madagascar appear to be Marine and Inland Water Resources; Forestry; and Climate Change.

FINDINGS

30

MALAWI

Malawi is the only country in the region that has a college dedicated to freshwater fisheries training. It also excels in the area of increased funding for the environment sector (Government of Malawi, 2007), and in increasing the area under sustainable land use management (Yaron et al., 2011). Malawi increased its population’s access to basic sanitation in rural areas from 81% in 2006 to 93% in 2009 (Government of Malawi, 2009).

Malawi’s systemic capacity issues are shaped by its high direct dependence on natural resources due to chronic poverty and low levels of industrialisation – leading to deforestation for fuel wood, overfishing for food and income. Population increase and population density has resulted in declining land holding sizes (Government of Malawi, 2007). The resultant deforestation has contributed to increased flash floods, sedimentation of rivers and fish habitat, higher nutrient loads and rapid growth of water weeds (Yoran et al., 2011). For example, between 1990 and 2005, the proportion of land area covered by forest declined by 5% (from 41% to 36%) because of high population dependence on fuel wood for tobacco curing and for cooking (Government of Malawi, Ministry of Development Planning and Cooperation, 2010). Siltation in the catchment area of the Shire River and its tributaries undermines hydro-power generation (Government of Malawi, 2007). There is no integrated climate change consideration in the National Development Policy and no specialised training offered in tertiary institutions in Malawi relating to climate change. Meteorolo-gists have to be trained in Kenya and elsewhere, which is expensive (Government of Malawi, 2007). This study also established that the relatively high levels of poverty, coupled with low GDP make it difficult for Malawi to fund its environment and sustainable development capacity needs. This has been worsened by the recent (2011) donor withdrawal and associated national governance challenges.

Malawi’s institutional capacity needs are varied. According to the NCSA report (Government of Malawi, 2007), it lacks capacity to implement its Clean Air Act, to establish and control air quality standards. This is partly because it does not have the necessary tools and equipment. Manda (2008) notes that municipali-ties need capacities for solid waste collection and for involving urban dwellers in addressing pollution and waste matters. Malawi’s capacity to develop clean technology or use available alternative materials such as agricultural waste is low (UNDP, 2008a). In general the country needs strengthening in institutional coordination and accountability, coherence and consistence in the legal framework and in linking policy and research. It needs to develop appropriate biodiversity and forest resource management regulations. Similarly, there is inadequate joint communication between employers and training institutions. Staffing levels and retention of professional staff is a major challenge for the government (Government of Malawi, 2007; UNDP, 2008). Property rights over water and water resources are weak (Yoran et al., 2011) and so is general capacity for environmental law enforcement. Malawi does not have a policy on climate change and lacks capacity to tap into the Clean Development Mechanisms. It also needs equipment and facilities for meteorological services. This study established that the Department of Environmental Affairs is severely under-staffed, with a vacancy rate of 45%.

The 30 environmental experts and decision makers who participated in the capacity assessment study being reported here identified several human capacity needs in Malawi: environmental educators, envi-ronmental lawyers, environmental economists, environmental reporters, biological scientists, foresters, law enforcers, sustainable land use managers and extension workers, foresters and fish ecologists, air quality modelers, clean technology developers, climate change modeling and adaptation specialists. Its cross-cutting capacity needs include: building individual skills and motivation to address environmental and sustainable development issues; developing and transferring technology, planning and managing


31

monitoring and evaluation processes; collecting, managing and exchanging information and coordinating multiple actors (government, private sector, NGOs).

The 30 research participants in Malawi identified Forestry, Energy, Biodiversity and Natural Heritage, Waste and Pollution as well as ESD as priority sectors in the country. Their criteria for prioritisation were sectors that ‘overlapped’ into other sectors; the degree of threat to human quality of life and the extent to which the population is dependent on the resources in a sector. For example, Biodiversity and Natural Heritage was seen as a cross-cutting sector, encompassing forestry, fisheries, land use management, climate change and water – so was ESD. The sectors that were prioritised for their threat to quality of human life are Waste and Pollution as there is a high level of unregulated waste disposal, some of which ends up in drinking water. Deforestation to meet energy, construction and boat making needs was seen as threatening quality of life by causing erosion, siltation, flash floods, global warming and a decreasing capacity for families to meet household energy needs. The high dependence of Malawians on fuel wood, which leads to deforesta-tion and contributes to climate change, resulted in the Energy Sector being rated as a priority sector. This high human dependence on biomass energy underlined the need for developing clean technology.

CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH ESD IN MALAWIAlthough the country is considered to have a considerable number of environmental education experts, the general population has limited knowledge about how everyday activities may be negatively impacting on the environment. There is no environmental education policy in Malawi. Education for Sustainable Development is not mainstreamed in the school curriculum. In addition, there is no proper packaging of learning materials to assist people in understanding ESD/SD concepts. There are very few ESD/SD documents on Malawi. There are no comprehensive capacity building programmes to address capacities in key institutions such as universities; teacher’s training colleges and government departments. However, there are some efforts to sensitise teachers, teacher’s training lecturers, supervisors and directors on ESD. Malawi’s Chancellor College hosts the LEAD Eastern and Southern Africa programme which develops sustainable development capacities of managers and workers from the region. In general, universities are seen as responding slowly to emerging sustainable development issues. Qualified personnel from these

institutions are seen as not delivering.

FINDINGS

32

MAURITIUS

Mauritius is one of the few SADC countries that has enjoyed decades of political and social stability. Its concern for environment and natural resources has been demonstrated by the high priority that it accords to sustainable land use management (Republic of Mauritius, 2004), the development of an Integrated Coastal Zone and Beach Management Plan, the development of a Geospatial Information System for map-ping marine habitat and the ecological richness of the south-eastern coastal zone and the amendment of laws to increase fish poaching penalties (Republic of Mauritius, 2005). Mauritius has also increased the capacity of coast guards to enforce laws and augmented this effort by setting up and running environmen-tal awareness campaigns (ibid.).

Mauritius’ systemic capacity issues are largely socio-economic and ecological. It commits a relatively low percentage of its national budget to environment and natural resources management (low priority) (Republic of Mauritius, 2005). This low prioritisation is also manifested in the setting aside of a small pro-portion of land for biodiversity conservation. Where biodiversity is found on private land, government does not have the power to protect it. The low absolute figures for environment and NRM budget can be partly explained by the fact that Mauritius’ main export commodity (sugar), faces unfair competition on the Euro-pean market where sugar is subsidised, thus undermining profitability of agricultural produce (Republic of Mauritius, 2004). Other systemic capacity constraints arise from acute land pressure due to urbanisation, intensive agricultural practices, deforestation and overgrazing (Republic of Mauritius, 2004). The big size of the Mauritian Exclusive Economic Zone greatly limits effective surveillance (Republic of Mauritius, MoF & ED & MoE & NDU, 2005). Ecologically, and as a small island state, the country is vulnerable to effects of climate change, especially to sea level rise and cyclones. And yet climate change is generally regarded as a low priority in the country (ibid.).

Mauritius has inadequate infrastructure for sewerage management and water-borne disease manage-ment, control of effluent and agro-chemical discharge into water. It lacks technology and resources to manage intrusion of salt water into coastal aquifers. Clean technology development is another area of institutional capacity need. For example, there is need for energy research and development for economi-cal fuel switching and for coordinating future energy research initiatives. This needs to be supported by incentives to shift from private to public transport services, the development of capacity to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of alternative energy technologies and mechanisms for incorporation of energy efficiency and conservation aspects in designs and construction (Republic of Mauritius, MoF & ED & MoE & NDU, 2005). Mauritius also lacks legislation to regulate entry of invasive alien species and further needs capacity to enforce a range of environmental legislation and regulations. It needs to be strength-ened in biodiversity research and in the setting up of mechanisms and structures for biodiversity and agro-biodiversity regulation and germplasm exchange. Institutional responsibilities are not adequately articulated, linked and separated. For example, there is need for an integrated sustainable national water policy to address sedimentation, eutrophication and related issues affecting lagoons, rivers and coastal areas. The exposure of the island state to vagaries of climate change makes it imperative for the provision of human and financial resources for climate change and adaptation research. This should be informed by a research strategy, which is not in place. The cross-cutting capacity issues include integrated govern-ance, policy planning and review, bureaucracy and under-staffing in many relevant Ministries (Republic of Mauritius, 2011).

The human capacity needs of Mauritius range from those who have legal knowledge, to those with eco-logical and biological know-how, to those with predictive climate and air quality knowledge to those with integrative and systems skills for causing effective implementation of the conventions under discussion.


33

More specifically, Mauritius needs environmental lawyers, environmental economists, environmental edu-cators, international negotiators, land use planners, marine and terrestrial ecologists, agro-ecological spe-cialists, air quality modellers, climatologists and adaptation specialists, green technology developers and adapters, monitors and law enforcers.

According to the Mauritius Green Paper6 of April 2011, the emerging priority sectors for the country include: Biodiversity; Marine and Inland Water Resources; Waste and Pollution; and ESD.

MOZAMBIQUE

Some of the striking features about Mozambique and its implementation of MEAs is that the government national university (the Eduardo Mondlane University) is actively involved in research and implementation of Rio Conventions (Republic of Mozambique, MICOA, 2008). The rights of communities over the land and natural resources are recognised and this serves as an incentive for the communities to look after their resources (ibid.). However, this law tends to be abused by those in authority and with this legal knowledge. Mozambique recently embarked on an ambitious reforestation project for carbon sequestration and indus-trial purposes. In 2009 alone, 13 900 hectares were reforested, mostly by the private sector (Government of Mozambique, MPD, 2010). Furthermore, the country has increased the percentage of protected areas from 11% to 16% with the creation of new national parks and reserves, including marine and coastal environ-ments (ibid.). A decent proportion of the curriculum in primary schools in Mozambique is localised, which gives opportunities for integrating ESD.

Mozambique has systemic capacity issues, many of which can be linked to its political instability in the 1970s to the 1990s. This diverted resources away from natural resources conservation. Now there is a strong need for infrastructural development in protected, rural and urban areas. The rural-urban migra-tion creates a need for water and sanitation infrastructure (Government of Mozambique, MICOA, 2008). The other systemic capacity issue is that the government depends on donors for the implementation of international conventions. This may be partly linked to the high level of poverty in the country where over half of the population is poor and depends heavily on the exploitation of natural resources (small-scale farming, livestock grazing, fishing, hunting, fuel wood, harvest of medicinal plants, etc.) for subsistence export (Government of Mozambique, MICOA, 2008). Ecologically, Mozambicans are vulnerable to climate change, especially to sea level rise because 60% of the population lives near coastal areas (Government of Mozambique, MPD, 2010). The geographical location of the country makes it vulnerable to climate extreme events, particularly floods, droughts and tropical cyclones. Cyclical floods make it difficult to use low lying areas (Government of Mozambique, 2005). In terms of ESD, the high level of illiteracy limits the opportunities for the dissemination of information, national legislation, conventions and public awareness about environmental issues, particularly in the rural areas (Government of Mozambique, MICOA, 2008). Mozambique is relatively weak in terms of technology development and financial resources (Government of Mozambique, MPD, 2010).

Mozambique needs institutional capacities in terms of role separation and clarification between different actors in the environment and sustainable development sector. Similarly, it needs capacity for coordination

6 A Green Paper is a government report regarding the formulation of a policy but it is not a policy in itself. It usually leads

to the development of a policy after a series of consultative processes. A Green Paper becomes a White Paper before

becoming Policy.

FINDINGS

34

of participating government departments and between them and the private sector and civil society organisations. In this regard, the Government of Mozambique report (2010) recommended the setting up of an environmental technical unit for Rio Conventions with scientific and technical autonomy to support partner institutions in the implementation of the conventions. Associated institutional capacity needs are related to research capacity and facilities; data collection, input and management; monitoring and surveillance as well as strategic assessment of coastal areas. Mozambique has inadequate early warning systems. It lacks facilities and incentives for clean technology development as well as the ability to access the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Its capacity to enforce environmental legislation is low. Until recently, Mozambique had one university only and this resulted in Mozambicans having low access to postgraduate courses relevant to the implementation of environmental conventions. At an international level, Mozambique’s participation is constrained because international conventions and agreements are not in Portuguese (Republic of Mozambique, MICOA, 2008).

Mozambique has identified human skills capacity needs (Republic of Mozambique, MICOA, 2008) and these range from meteorologists, air pollution modelling specialists, climate change adaptation special-ists to atmospheric chemistry scientists. It also identified the need for toxicologists, freshwater and marine biologists; natural resource economists, environmental scientists, environmental lawyers and auditors, biological scientists (ecologists, zoologists, taxonomists and botanists); land use planners, community based natural resources managers, extension workers, and agricultural scientists; sociologists and en-vironmental educators. ICT and GIS have also been identified as areas needing attention and so is clean energy development. The country’s cross-cutting capacity needs include capacity to: negotiate at the Con-ference of Parties; raise public awareness and environmental education; develop institutional mandates, structures and frameworks; coordinate multiple sectors; and plan and manage monitoring and evaluation processes.

The priority sectors for Mozambique appear to be Climate Change; Marine and Inland Water Resources and Biodiversity.


35

NAMIBIA

Namibia has a strong research and conservation history and has recently implemented Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) programmes (Government of Namibia, NCSA Report, 2005). By 2005 the area under CBNRM covered over 8 million ha and generated at least N$15 million annually (ibid.). Similarly, Namibia’s marine fisheries management policies have been commended internationally for their effectiveness and efficiency. Implementation of scientifically established fishing quotas have helped to promote the integrity of marine resources and enhance recovery of certain fish stocks after decades of overexploitation (Government of Namibia & UNDP, 2002). Worth noting is the fact that environmental protection is enshrined in the Constitution and sustainable development is a cornerstone of Vision 2030 (Government of Namibia MDG Report, 2004). The education system has begun to include environmental issues in the curriculum, and various resource materials have been produced locally for schools and higher institutions (Tarr, 2003).

Namibia’s systemic capacity issues are influenced by it being a vast and largely semi-arid country with a low thinly distributed population. It is often not economically viable to connect small, widely dispersed rural communities to the national grid (Government of Namibia & UNDP, 2002). About 60% of the Namibian population is dependent on biomass fuel for energy (Government of Namibia, 2001) but it does not contribute significant amounts of greenhouse gases to global emissions although it uses electricity from South Africa that is largely generated by fossil fuels (Mfune, 2009). The Government of Namibia (Government of Namibia, 2007) considers reforming the energy sector as a priority in order to mitigate climate change. The recently initiated German-supported solar energy project is a step in this direction. Another systemic capacity issue faced by the country is the inequitable distribution of land (Namibia NCSA Report, 2005; Kisaka, Manyati, Tjingaete & Chiduwa, 2011), which can be traced back to the apartheid period which lasted for about a century. Namibia is endowed with productive marine resources requiring the country not only to tap into the resources but to look after them. One of the most important systemic issues is that Namibia has inadequate financial and other resources to implement conventions adequately (UNDP, 2008b; Kisaka et al., 2011). Kisaka et al. (2011) identified other important systemic capacity issues as: fragmented and out of date policies; unsatisfactory relations between government and CSOs; lack of legal mechanisms for country and community access to and benefit from its genetic materials (e.g. devil’s claw, water melon and monkey orange); and the impact of HIV and AIDS.

The institutional capacities that Namibia needs include capacity for inter-departmental and inter-ministe-rial linkages and coordination, vertical linkages within departments (from national to local), and capacity for joint monitoring of trans-boundary conservation areas. The regional officers of line ministries lack funds and infrastructure to perform their duties adequately. In spite of its long history in biodiversity and related research, Namibia lacks research capacity and capacity to negotiate at Conference of Parties (Gov-ernment of Namibia, 2007; Kisaka et al., 2011). Its Environmental Economics Unit needs strengthening (Government of Namibia, 2005). Namibia needs a national strategy to enhance synergies amongst various climate-change sensitive sectors, mainstreaming climate change into national policies and plans, and capacity for climate change management and reporting; land use change and forestry management for carbon sinking (Mfune & Ndombo, 2005; Harts & Smith, 2008; Mfune, 2009). At the same time, Namibia lacks capacity to absorb clean technologies from outside (Mfune, 2009; Kisaka et al., 2011) and to harness vast solar energy available to the country (Desert Research Foundation of Namibia, 2001). It needs robust procedures for conflict resolution regarding water use and management (Government of Namibia MDG Report, 2004). Local and regional authorities’ capacity in land use planning and management is low, so are extension services and infrastructure, and farmer environmental management structures (Govern-ment of Namibia, 2005). The country lacks incentives based schemes to improve waste management and

FINDINGS

36

pollutio n. Other constraints include limited policy capacity development; low incentives for staff retention; lack of tools and equipment; too much dependence on donor funding which is declining; and limited budget for programme and plan implementation (Kisaka et al., 2011).

According to the Government of Namibia’s NCSA report of 2005 and Kisaka et al. (2011), some of its important human capacity needs lie in the areas of clean and renewable energy development: taxonomy, geology, geo-hydrology and surface water hydrology, biosystematics, ecology, environmental economics and environmental law, land use planning, biostatistics, cleaner production and environmental manage-ment. The other areas in which human capacity is needed are to do with climate change modelling and reporting, climate change mitigation and adaptation. Integrative skills are needed for managing complex environmental issues and competing stakeholder interests, especially in the areas of water resources, sus-tainable land use management and natural resources management. Skills development is also needed in the areas of forestry, sustainable agriculture, agricultural extension and environmental education. Policy makers are required to provide the necessary incentives for environmentally friendly practices (ibid.). The cross-cutting capacities needed include talent management and retention (leadership), negotiation skills at COP, environmental governance, stakeholder engagement, multiple actor and sector coordination, in-formation management and use, technology transfer, planning and managing monitoring and evaluation (Kisaka et al., 2011).

The priority sectors of Namibia appear to be Marine and Inland Water Resources; Sustainable Land Use Management and Forestry.

SEYCHELLES

Seychelles is active in international negotiations in the African regional group and as a small island state. One of its major strengths resides in its high human capacity development index (Government of Sey-chelles, 2005). However, this is constrained by the absolute numbers of the people on the island state (total population is about 87 000 people). Seychelles has demonstrated good practice in the area of biodiversity management and has provided modules for other countries especially Small Island States in the areas of rehabilitation of small island ecosystems and species recovery (ibid.). It has two World Heritage sites (Vallee de Mai and Aldabra Atoll) and its economy is heavily dependent on ecotourism. The Government of Seychelles recognises the importance of sustainable environmental management and the conservation of biodiversity as the basis of its socio-economic development (Government of Seychelles, UNDP & GEF, 2011). Seychelles is one of the few countries in SADC that has established an International Convention Unit, which collaborates with other agencies to develop, clarify, coordinate and implement mandates. A cross-section of organisations (NGOs, government and quasi-government departments and international) working in the environment, sustainable development and education for sustainable development, repre-sented by 18 individuals, were interviewed during the capacity assessment study.

Seychelles’ systemic capacity issues are shaped by its size and geographical location. It is vulnerable to threats from increased global warming and sea level rise. Its location exposes it to a high incidence of leak-ages from oil tankers. Monitoring of the environment is complicated by the fact that the nation consists of 115 islands distributed over a 1.3 million km2 area (www.nationsencyclopedia.com/ Africa/Seychelles). HIV and AIDS also threaten its small population (www.un.intnet.mu/undp/downloads/seychelles). Little of the natural forest remains and coconut has become the main source of timber. The small size of the popula-tion makes it difficult to have a wide range of skills in the right quantities. As a result, Seychelles depends heavily on expatriates and external consultants creating a language and cultural barrier. Furthermore,


37

only one delegation is allowed to attend international convention meetings resulting in little continuity in representation and negotiation skills7 (Government of Seychelles, NCSA, 2005). Pressure on land and its resources is being worsened by inadequate funds (ibid.), limited freshwater, rapid development of tourism and population growth, and increased urbanisation (UN country document for Seychelles, 2007-2010). The job freeze in civil service also further worsens the shortage of manpower across the various sectors.

Seychelles faces challenges in institutional capacities that include mainstreaming of global environmen-tal objectives into the Environment Management Plans (EMPs) to address climate change, biodiversity and land degradation; and linkages within government, and between government and non-governmental organisations, limiting the effectiveness of the current EMPs operations (Government of Seychelles NCSA, 2005). It also lacks capacity to develop legislation, regulation and management frameworks to address invasive alien species. Even though Seychelles is exposed to natural disasters, including those linked to the environment, it does not have a national disaster management policy (UNEP, 2010). Disaster risk pre-paredness and emergency response ability is very limited especially in terms of flooding due to tsunami and rains. Most of the schools and hotels are in low-lying coastal land (3m above sea level). The Risk and Disaster Management Committee have limited skills in preparing materials for climate change adaptation and mitigation. In addition, environmental groups have inadequate skills in project management, monitor-ing and evaluation and consultancy (ibid.)

Other areas in which institutional capacity gaps have been identified are: capacity to link national pro-grammes with international obligations, capacity to undertake studies on land degradation and capacity to foster public participation and regular information exchange (Government of Seychelles, NCSA, 2005). There is only one NGO fully staffed by volunteers that focuses on land degradation and soil erosion. Most bush fires occur in Praslin Island resulting in water shortages and causing soil erosion. Seychelles, with

7 This applies to the whole range of international MEA meetings.

FINDINGS

38

assistance of the UNDP, is currently assessing capacity of institutions to implement national development programmes, focusing on functional capacity (planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation) in order to produce a Sustainable Development Strategy for Seychelles (ibid.) The cross-cutting capacity needs include ability to: negotiate at the Conference of Parties; raise public awareness and environmental education; develop and transfer technology; coordinate multiple actors; and plan and manage monitoring and evaluation processes.

Most government departments are operating at 30% staffing levels and the outreach department under Ministry of Environment has a 25% staffing level (ibid.). The human capacity gaps identified include those concerned with atmospheric and oceanic sciences. This includes human capacities in climate, climate change, and climate change adaptation and mitigation, air pollution and modelling as well as marine biologists and oceanographers. Teachers with specialist training in environmental education are also in short supply (www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Africa/Seychelles). Training in environment is inadequate. There are currently no institutions offering certificate/diploma on environment for workers in the sector. Advanced plans are currently underway to introduce an MSc in Environmental Science at the Univer-sity of Seychelles in 2012 (ibid.). The interviewees commonly stated the need for environmental lawyers to develop legislation on invasive alien species and law enforcers are needed to implement the various pieces of legislation. They also noted the need for resource materials: on climate change; for community educators using popular education to shift towards sustainability; on self-organisation/self-mobilisation of communities which is a new approach; and on mainstreaming environment for district administrators. The interviewees underscored the inadequate collaboration among the various stakeholders especially government and civil society.

The most commonly noted important priority areas were Biodiversity and natural heritage (basis of eco-tourism); Climate Change; Marine and Inland Water Resources; and Education and Training.

SOUTH AFRICA

South Africa is currently the only southern African country with a Green Economy Plan and is also leading in terms of prevention-based waste pollution management (DEA, 2010). South Africa’s GDP compares well with those of developed countries and it is therefore in a much stronger position to fund its own environ-ment and sustainable development initiatives than other SADC Member States. In addition, South Africa gives priority to sustainable use of biodiversity. South Africa has almost reached world targets of 20% protected coastal areas by 2012 with 19 marine parks covering 19% of coastal areas (SADC, 2008). It has a greater number of Higher Education Institutes than other SADC Member States. It also has clear strate-gies and relatively well-funded science and technology development strategies, including in the areas of clean energy development (ibid.). It is the only SADC country with an institute for hazardous waste.

The systemic capacity issues of South Africa are linked to the emergence of a green economy against a background of high levels of urbanisation and industrial development, high dependence on coal for energy generation and high external input agriculture, which is dependent on coal generated electricity and its geographical location that exposes it to oil spills by ships en route from the Middle East to other parts of the world. Over 90% of South Africa's electricity is generated from the combustion of coal that contains approximately 1.2% sulphur and up to 45% ash and accounts for 38% of the total primary energy consumed in all of Africa (DEA, 2010). South Africa’s commitment to achieve a 34% reduction of the country’s 2010 emissions by 2025 has implications on the kinds of skills that will be required, many of which are concerned with clean and renewable energy development. Its “cradle to cradle approach” to


39

waste management has implications on the kind of engineering and technology development required. Ecologically South Africa’s systemic capacity needs are shaped by high rates of biological diversity, the relatively high priority accorded to biodiversity, and the vast size of land allocated for biodiversity control on one hand and environmental and ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss, and pollution on the other. Here ecological and economic systemic capacity issues arise demanding low carbon economies and their associated cultural, technological and behaviour shifts. One of the most critical natural resource needs in South Africa is fresh water. South Africa consumes 80% of the region's water yet possesses only 10% of the region's water (DEA, 2010). The main socio-political shaper of systemic needs is its apartheid legacy, whose features of separate development are yet to be overcome in the areas of education and development. The quality of science and environmental education in historically disadvantaged schools and colleges lags behind that of those that were privileged. One of the respondents put it thus: Poor quality and expensive education in schools, colleges and some universities; lack of sound governance and political will; governance systems which do not foster inter-departmental cooperation; the poverty affect-ing the majority of citizens and the excessive wealth pursued by a minority as an entitlement. South African challenges include inter- and intra-sector coordination and coordination between institu-tions in development decisions, biodiversity management, as well as corresponding additional respon-sibilities arising from new policies, legislation, strategies and programmes with financial and human resources. Many government departments do not comply with submitting and reporting requirements of Environmental Implementation Plans and Environmental Management Plans (Government of South Africa, NCSA, 2005). This may be partly attributed to low staffing levels which are a general problem in the sectors under review. Pollution is an area where public awareness and knowledge is low and where enforcement is poor. There are similar challenges associated with development of options for integrated hazardous chemical management and with enforcement of air pollution regulations. Research and devel-opment in renewable energy technologies has been slow. There is no sector education and training author-ity (SETA) dedicated to environmental education, nor is environmental education integrated in all SETAs. At the same time, South Africa has institutional capacity needs for mainstreaming environment into all government departments and into development planning (greening of skills). This probably explains why the Local Government SETA has recently dedicated a large budget to environmental education (EE) (and incidentally selected WESSA as one of a few facilitators of the EE training). The 2010 study of South Africa’s skills needs identified four main areas in which skills are in great demand. These are (a) leadership skill supply in public and public sectors where vacancy rates are over 25%, (b) skills for greening the economy, which include sustainable development planning, climate change and adaptation, risk assessment and management, (c) skills for mainstreaming the environment into differ-ent sectors, curricula and training, and (d) skills to develop and expand the sector and these are linked to research, education and training – that is capacity for human capacity development (DEA, 2010). Re-spondents identified South Africa’s most important cross-cutting capacity needs as: involving national stakeholders in addressing environment and sustainable development issues; coordinating multiple sec-tors; building individual skills and motivation to address environmental and sustainable development is-sues; collecting, managing and exchanging information; and implementation of frameworks, policies and legislation. The two people who responded to the assessment study rated Energy; Marine and Inland Water Resourc-es; and Education and Training as the priority sectors: the first two because ‘dire problems are already manifest in the sectors’ and the last one because it can be used as a tool to address challenges being faced in the different sectors, i.e. has high potential for addressing challenges.

FINDINGS

40

SWAZILAND

Swaziland has had a successful reforestation programme, which resulted in a 9% increase in forested areas within ten years, from 36% in 1990 to 45% by 1999 (Government of Swaziland, MEPD, 2010). The other areas in which Swaziland is strong are concerned with the active role of civil society structures and organisations. The coordinating committee of NGOs provides an important link, actively participates in relevant meetings, and raises awareness around the objectives of the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) among all NGOs, promoting the inclusion of practical elements of the CCD into project proposals and implementation.

The assessment workshop that was conducted during the study and attended by 35 decision makers and specialists in environment, sustainable development and education identified several systemic issues. It underlined the negative effects of ‘settlement dynamics’ which were influenced by lack of a comprehensive national land policy. In terms of policy frameworks, the main limitation was identified as the inadequate incorporation of environmental considerations in National Economic Plans. The main political constraints were identified as low political will, especially at parliament level, which is sometimes underpinned by low levels of environmental awareness among the policy makers. The international perception of governance in the country also undermined the flow of resources from donor countries. This is worsened by the clas-sification of Swaziland as a middle income country which means that it cannot easily access certain donor funds, which are available to low income countries.

Poverty, population growth and HIV/AIDS increase the population’s direct dependence on natural resources in rural areas while in urban areas this has resulted in informal settlements that do not have the necessary water, sanitation and waste infrastructure and facilities. About 75% of the rural population depends on biomass fuel for energy (Government of Swaziland, MEDP, 2010). Ecologically, the conversion of land for commercial forestry and irrigated commercial agriculture is leading to loss of habitat and biodiversity. This is worsened by the increased presence of alien invasive species (ibid.). Proneness to forest fires


41

is a big ecological and economic systemic issue in Swaziland where thousands of forest hectares are destroyed annually (ibid.). Government’s low income levels undermines its ability to introduce incentive mechanisms and skills refreshment programmes to ensure that staff motivation is maintained, facilitate career progression and retain institutional memory (Government of Swaziland NSCA, 2004).

The national assessment workshop identified three main institutional capacity needs: cross-sector coordinatio n, cohesion and collaboration, and funding. This resonates with the Swaziland Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Swaziland Environment Authority, 2009). Swaziland has inadequate socio-economic incentives for sustainability. It generally lacks institutional frameworks, infra-structure and equipment for implementation, monitoring and evaluation to other obligations of the conven-tions (Government of of Swaziland NSCA, 2004). In this connection, it also needs comprehensive long-term frameworks for evaluating progress. Its infrastructure and facilities for water and pollution management are limited as it does not have the needed and associated information capturing and management sys-tems. Nor does it have appropriate air pollution assessment models (Zunckel, Tshukudu, Chimphamba, Maure, Jackson, Mugara, & Chipundu, n.d). However, the levels of air pollution are still low and this is not a priority sector (Government of Swaziland, MEPD, 2010). It needs socio-economic incentives to facilitate biodiversity conservation, to retain staff and to involve private land owners in conservation (Government of Swaziland, 2004). Land tenure and access rights are inadequate to motivate the population to use resourc-es sustainably. It needs to increase its capacity to monitor and control forest fires, especially in the context where it has given carbon emission control as a priority and given its recent National Multi-Sectoral Bush-fire Contingency Plan (Government of Swaziland, MEPD, 2010). Meanwhile, there is need for developing public and private sector awareness and understanding commitments that are under the Convention and how they can contribute. Other institutional capacity needs are linked to the mobilisation of science and technology to support decision-making, appropriate deployment of available human resources, reporting on and participating in international negotiations, and information management systems, and monitoring and evaluation that feeds into decision making (Swaziland Environment Authority, 2009).

The human capacity skills needed in Swaziland are foresters, climate change and adaptation specialists, natural resource economists, environmental lawyers and environmental educators. According to the 2004 Swaziland NCSA report, the country needs soil chemists, micro-biologists, physicists and remote sensing, survey and land use planners. The cross-cutting capacity needs of Swaziland include capacity to: coordinate multiple actors; collect, manage and exchange information; develop and use economic instruments and sustainable financing mechanisms; develop and transfer technology; develop and enforce policy, legislation and regulations; and plan and manage monitoring and evaluation processes.

The assessment workshop of Swaziland identified Climate Change; Inland and Marine Water Resources; Sustainable Land Management; as priority sectors for capacity building. The criteria for selecting these sectors can be summarised as:

The potential risks associated with not addressing issues in that sector; The degree of uncertainty about the effects of the sector; Potential effects on production systems; Vulnerability of the country to negative developments in the sector; Proportion of the population that is currently affected;

FINDINGS

42

Importance of the sector to the country (drivers); Current state of the resource in question; and Level of threat to human health and livelihoods, as well as to biological diversity.

The assessment study identified the following as the skills needed in the three priority sectors:

Climate Change Inland Water ResourcesSustainable Land Management

Climate change educators

Skilled negotiators

Evidence/statistics and other forms of reliable ‘research’

Advocacy/awareness agents

Planners

Project developers

Meteorologists/researchers

Monitoring and evaluation

Project proposal develop-ment

Hydrologists and hydro-geologists

Water engineers

Water treatment specialists

Community water supply techni-cians

Monitoring and Evaluation

Water resource management and Economics

Sustainable Forestry management

Forestry/Ecology

Natural resource education

Project proposal development

Land use planning

Land conservation

Land evaluation

Geomorphology

Land management

Monitoring and evaluation

Soil and water engineering

GIS/remote sensing

Educators

Project proposal develop-ment


43

TANZANIA

Tanzania gives importance to environment and sustainable development matters as coordination of imple-mentation of post-Rio Conventions placed under the Vice President’s Office. Other structural and strategic efforts that show prioritisation of MEAs include the establishment of an Environmental Management Fund, a National Conventions Coordination Committee, a National Environmental Advisory Committee and the establishment of a Centre for Foreign Relations that develops negotiation skills. In order to curtail cor-ruption, the country set up a portfolio on good governance and established the Prevention of Corruption Bureau. The environment management structures are replicated at local government level (United Repub-lic of Tanzania, DoE, 2007). Three of Tanzania’s universities teach air pollution and control courses and their graduates have sound knowledge on atmospheric modelling (Zunckel et al., n.d). The Department of Physics at the University of Dar-es-Salaam has more than 25 years experience in meteorological modeling (ibid.). Between 1990 and 2008, Tanzania reduced consumption of ozone-depleting substances by over 90%, from 280 tonnes to 26 tonnes (United Republic of Tanzania, DoE, 2007). It has Early Warning and Disaster Preparedness Systems that are linked to the international early warning and disaster prepared-ness networks. In the area of research and information dissemination, the country has local publications, scientific journals and newsletters on environmental issues (ibid.).

The national capacity assessment workshop was attended by 15 environmental practitioners from Tan-zania, Botswana, Lesotho and Namibia. It was held at the National Environment Management Council (NEMC) in Dar es Salaam. The workshop highlighted the low level of environmental understanding and awareness among politicians who are ultimately the key decision makers. The main systemic need identi-fied was the lack of political will and commitment to address environmental, sustainable development and education for sustainable development issues. Inadequate and fragmented incorporation of environmental issues across various sectors and the associated national strategic plans and programmes were identified as a main policy implementation constraint. The systemic capacity issues of Tanzania are largely ecologi-cal, budgetary and political. Although Tanzania’s GHG per capita emission is very low, it suffers from the impacts of climate change (United Republic of Tanzania, MDGs: Report Midway Evaluation, 2000-2008). Sea-level rise affects its coastal areas and islands. Another ecological issue is that of invasive alien species in water and on land (United Republic of Tanzania, DoE, 2007). Tanzania has large areas of land that are protected and this demands corresponding high levels of human and other resources. Besides ecological limitations, Tanzania has inadequate funding to meet its implementation commitments and plans. This systemic issue is sometimes worsened by the conflict between donor priorities and the national priorities of implementing the conventions (ibid.). The armed and political conflicts in Central Africa, which have led to an influx of refugees, have also created challenges for Tanzania.

Many of Tanzania’s institutional capacity needs are to do with policy and infrastructure. A key institutional gap that was identified was the lack of collaboration and harmonisation of the strategies, approaches and policies of the various ministries and other stakeholders involved in addressing environmental issues. These are needed in the areas of sewerage and waste water in urban areas an agricultural extension in rural areas (United Republic of Tanzania, DoE, 2007). Tanzania also lacks capacity to enforce laws, poli-cies and by-laws relating to natural resources management (ibid.) and this may be partly explained by its relatively low capacity to fund enforcement. It does not have adequate capacity to collect, monitor, analyse and disseminate information on the conventions nor incentives to encourage private sector involvement in the implementation of conventions.

The workshop participants collectively ranked and identified the country's top three priority sectors (Sus-tainable Land Management, Education and Training and Climate Change) giving reasons for the selection.

FINDINGS

44

The criteria are summarised below:

Key national priority as reflected in national budget; Existence or absence of associated supportive policies for sector; Contribution of sector to livelihoods; Contribution of sector to national economy; Impact of current problems in the sector on livelihoods; Uncertainty of the risks and effects of sector; and Cross-cutting extent and effects of sector on other environmental sectors.

The workshop identified the following associated human capacity gaps for the priority sectors:

Sustainable Land Management

Education and Training Climate Change

Extension workers: inadequate numbers of extension workers coupled with poor administra-tive management makes land users lack access to adequate extension services;

Farmers have inadequate knowledge and skills on proper land use management;

Foresters at grassroots level; and

Community environmental officers.

Qualified teachers in environment, EE/ESD;

Agricultural extension staff at all levels;

Medical personnel (environmental health);

Politicians empowered with environ-mental information;

Environmental journalists;

Community environmental officers; and

Environmental monitors and lawyers.

Education and aware-ness specialists since climate change is a relatively new sector;

Climate change educa-tors;

Adaptation and mitiga-tion specialists; and

Monitoring and evalu-ation.

Although Tanzania is relatively advanced in terms of atmospheric modelling, it has not developed models that are appropriate to the region. It also lacks capacity for developing and assessing adaptation and miti-gation options and capacity to access the Clean Development Mechanism. It has not yet mainstreamed climate change, biodiversity and desertification into school curricula. Like most SADC countries, Tanzania struggles to bring about collaboration and networking among relevant institutions within and outside the country (ibid.). Tanzania’s cross-cutting capacity needs include the ability to coordinate multiple actors; enforce policy, legislation and regulations; develop and transfer technology; mainstream environmental sustainability into the development sector; collect, manage and exchange information; and plan and man-age monitoring and evaluation processes.

The priority sectors for Tanzania were identified as Sustainable Land Management, Climate change and Education and Training.


45

ZAMBIA

One of the most striking features about Zambia is the involvement of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in pollution monitoring and control. For example, Citizen for a Better Environment focuses on reducing water pollution from mining and related activities by: lobbying for legislation change and community awareness and mobilisation in mining areas; undertaking environmental studies to determine the extent of ecologi-cal damage to streams and rivers due to mining activities in preparation for rehabilitation and restoration; and conducting water quality monitoring with respect to the Environmental Protection and Pollution Con-trol Act. Zambia has integrated ESD into the Basic School Curriculum and in teacher training colleges (Government of Zambia MDG Report, 2008). Zambia is one of the few SADC countries that has a greater percentage of its population living in urban areas.

The systemic capacity issues that affect Zambia are mainly social and economic. Socially, the population is relatively poor and highly dependent on natural resources such as fuel wood and charcoal for energy. The Zambia MDG Report (2008) notes “High poverty levels and the lack of alternative sources of livelihoods in rural areas exert pressure on land and associated resources, which threaten rural and urban livelihoods from a changing environment”. This social limitation is compounded by diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. Zambia has a weak economy (Chiundama, 2008) not capable of supporting the budgetary needs for implementing the conventions and this is worsened by a lack of sustainable funding strategies (Govern-ment of Zambia, NCSA Report, 2007).

Zambia’s institutional capacity needs are multi-layered. Effective environmental planning and manage-ment is one of the areas that needs capacity strengthening as the following statement notes “Inadequate data and weak to absent monitoring systems, related to forest inventories, animal populations, pollution and emissions data, present a major challenge for effective environmental planning and management” (Government of Zambia, MDG report, 2008). Systematic translation of MEAs into national programmes is another area where organisation capacity is lacking. Related capacity needs are to do with coordination and collaboration between ministries and departments. The Focal Points who are tasked with oversee-ing the implementation of Conventions serve in this role part-time (Government of Zambia, NCSA, 2007). Furthermore, in the area of Climate Change Zambia does not have a specific agency to implement rel-evant provisions. Zambia’s information management systems are inadequate and this undermines data collection, storage and analysis. As a result of the several institutional capacity needs discussed in this paragraph, Zambia has only been able to slowly integrate provisions of the Conventions into its national policies and programmes. Infrastructure and facilities for measuring pollutants and for waste and pollu-tion management is under-developed (Chiundama, 2008) and this is worsened by lack of skilled personnel in this sector. Although Zambia has vast forests and big national parks, it lacks capacity to value and price its natural resources and has no innovative funding mechanisms (Government of Zambia, 2007). Zambia lacks the necessary capacity to enforce its policies and regulations on environment and sustainable devel-opment conventions. Staff retention in the sector (in government) is low due to poor remuneration. In the area of research and education, Zambia needs capacity to develop proper research/scientific standards and protocols.

Zambia needs human capacity development in many areas but the new and emerging ones, are risk assessment, environmental law, environmental economics, advanced planning, climate change and ad-aptation, risk management, predictive skills and integration skills. It also has notable capacity gaps in atmospheric sciences (Chiundama, 2008). Zambia also lacks critical public awareness of climate change and its impact on their economic and social livelihoods and needs capacity to translate strategies into action plans at community level where impacts of climate change are felt most (Government of Zambia,

FINDINGS

46

NCSA Report, 2007). Cross-cutting capacity needs for Zambia include the ability to build individual skills and motivation to address environmental and sustainable development issues; coordinate multiple actors; develop and enforce policy, legislation and regulations; collect, manage and exchange information; and plan and manage M & E processes.

The priority sectors for Zambia are Waste and Pollution; Biodiversity; Climate Change and Forestry.

ZIMBABWE

Zimbabwe is doing well in the area of environmental education where it has introduced sustainability in agricultural curricula of colleges; introduced environmental science and health education at all levels in primary and secondary schools; and begun post-graduate training in Forestry Management. Recently, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism has partnered with University of Zimbabwe and plans to offer a Bachelor of Science degree honours in Meteorology as it currently relies on external staff (Mhuka, 2011). It is also one of the few SADC countries that implements the ‘polluter pays principle’ with regard to ef-fluent and solid waste management (Nhamo, 2003). It introduced carbon tax and energy levying in 2001 and countries like Swaziland who are interested in such levies can learn from Zimbabwe’s experience. However, the extent to which these levies are used for environment and development appears limited. The country established a local training centre that offers Meteorological Diplomas and Post Graduate Diplomas. Metrological officers are being trained locally, to do observations and forecasting. The Institute of Environmental Studies (IES) conducts regional projects on policy frameworks on air pollution in SADC, and is also looking at emission inventories, health hazards and impact to crops. The National University of Science and Technology has begun offering a programme in Environmental Science and Health while Bindura University introduced a Masters in Forestry and Environmental Science.

Zimbabwe’s systemic capacity issues are socio-political, economic and ecological. The socio-political en-vironment of the country has been unstable for about ten years since the turn of the century. This chal-lenge has resulted in declining economic activity which has caused high unemployment levels, low GDP and increased poverty. The net effect of these contextual developments has been an increase in direct de-pendence on natural resources (Government of Zimbabwe NCSA Report, 2006) and associated difficulties for environmental governance. It has also resulted in little funding and other resources being committed towards the implementation of MEAs. The Land Reform programme resulted in an increase in number of small-scale farmers who upon resettlement convert previously wooded areas into agricultural land (Gov-ernment of Zimbabwe NCSA Report, 2006). This coupled with other land husbandry activities has exposed the land to increased erosion and sedimentation of water bodies. The major ecological constraint is recur-rent droughts. Participants in the study identified three main systemic capacity constraints: politics and good governance; financial resources and political will and commitment. These resonate with secondary research findings discussed in this paragraph. Financial resource limitations have also impacted on CSO participation because many donors have withdrawn from funding NRM activities (because of national gov-ernance issues). The NGOs that have had to scale down because of low funding include Southern African Alliance for Natural Resources, Zimbabwe Environment Resources Organisation, IUCN and Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources.

The institutional capacity needs of Zimbabwe range from policy analysis, coordination and collaboration, accountability (environmental governance), research, information management and monitoring systems, to infrastructure, equipment and facilities (Government of Zimbabwe, NCSA Report, 2006, Matiza & Viriri, 2007). Coordination between different ministries and sectors is relatively weak and accountability systems


47

regarding monitoring and enforcement of environmental legislation are inadequate. Security of tenure is another institutional capacity need in Zimbabwe. Land use planning in newly resettled areas is lacking and public access to information on land degradation, climate change and biodiversity loss is limited. Tarr (2003) notes that Zimbabwe has neither systems for accrediting Environmental Impact Assessment prac-titioners, nor the capacity to draw up terms of reference for them. The country has not yet developed an integrated climate change and adaptation policy for responding to the issue strategically and holistically. Matiza and Viriri (2007) note that Zimbabwe’s capacity to collect, analyse, store and disseminate informa-tion of public interest is low, partly because of high staff turnover at the Central Statistics Office. In gen-eral, monitoring equipment and facilities are inadequate. In urban areas local authorities are ill-equipped to monitor air pollution while among law enforcers, there is lack of capacity to identify toxic substances. The main cross-cutting capacity needs appear to be to coordinate multiple actors; collect, manage and exchange information; develop and transfer technology; plan and manage monitoring and evaluation proc-esses; and collect, manage and exchange information. Participants in the study identified territorialism as a key impediment to institutional development.

Zimbabwe’s priority sectors were identified by 25 research participants, 15 of them in an assessment workshop and the remainder through semi-structured interviews. The priority sectors were identified as Sustainable Land Management; Inland Water Resources; Biodiversity and Natural Heritage and Waste and Pollution. The main criteria used were the extent to which sustainable use was being effectively imple-mented; and the significance of the problems being experienced in the sectors to economic development. For example, there was considerable soil erosion, bush fires and siltation of rivers, poaching of wildlife and relatively low returns in tourism, pollution of water bodies near towns and cities by effluent and industrial waste. Climate change and ESD were found difficult to score at the same level as the sectors because of their cross-cutting nature.

The human capacity needs in Zimbabwe were identified as environmental law, environmental econom-ics, sustainable land managers, wetland managers, environmental reporters, foresters, environmental law enforcers, climate change specialists, adaptation specialists, remote sensing and GIS, atmospheric scientists, risk managers, clean technology developers, environmental policy makers and planners and environmental health technicians. The study identified the most important cross-cutting capacity issues as abilities to: involve national stakeholders in addressing environment and sustainable development is-sues; build individual skills and motivation to address environmental and sustainable development issues; raise public awareness and environmental education; define the role of sub-national and local governance structures in environmental management; mainstream environmental sustainability into the development sector; coordinate multiple sectors; plan and manage monitoring and evaluation processes; and utilise monitoring and evaluation lessons and insights.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

48

04 KEY CONCLUSIONS

The key conclusions summarise the major systemic capacity issues, priority sectors and what shapes them, as well as commonly found institutional and human capacity needs. These are derived from the preceding chapters and paragraphs of this report and they inform the recommendations.

SYSTEMIC CAPACITY ISSUESCommitment to environment and sustainable devel-opment is generally low as reflected in the low priori-tisation of these sectors in government budgets. The budgets are insufficient to employ either adequate staff to do law enforcement or specialised staff to re-tain and develop them. Funding for the environment and sustainable development sectors is generally low in most Member States. Much of the funding comes

from donors both at Member State and at SADC level and there have been cases of weak alignment between donors’ and the region’s priorities.

The generally high numbers or proportions of poor peo-ple in the southern African region means that there is a high dependence on natural resources, which then tend to get over-exploited. This has been worsened by HIV and AIDS which has caused the deaths of a good proportion of the skilled and able-bodied popula-tion across the entire region. At the same time, social and military instability has undermined environmental governance and the protection of natural resources. It has also resulted in infrastructural damage, rural ur-ban migration and the relegation of environment and sustainable development matters to allow people to focus on the here and now.

The proneness of SADC Member States to climate change and its negative effects are generally high, be-cause of geographical location (islands, large coastal areas) and the relatively low capacities of the govern-ments and populations to adapt to climate change. Some countries have topography and soils that are


49 susceptible to soil erosion. Others are prone to natural and human induced fires, which cause plant and ani-mal loss while at the same time contributing to GHG. At the same time, southern African countries have among the highest levels of biodiversity and endemic species, which must be looked after. This places con-siderable pressure on them to develop the necessary institutional and human capacity to do so.

PRIORITY SECTORS

Priority sectors were identified as those which: (a) affect several other sectors, that is, which have a cross-cutting effects, (b) pose threats and risks to the survival and livelihoods of human beings, (c) affect food production systems, (d) contribute significantly to people’s livelihoods, (e) contribute significantly to the economies of member states, (f) affect a big pro-portion of the population, and (g) may not contribute significantly now, but have the potential to contribute to sustainable development.

The most commonly found priority sector is climate change, which is also a cross-cutting issue that af-fects coastal, inland and small island states in differ-ent but significant ways. The associated priorities are to do with climate change adaptation and mitigation across all sectors. The adaptation and mitigation chal-lenges shape a range of institutional and human ca-pacity needs in nearly all sectors: land management, forestry, energy production and use, inland and ma-rine water resources, biodiversity and trans-boundary conservation. Education and Training in the different disciplines that are to do with ESD was seen as an important step towards addressing the challenges faced in all sectors, and especially in the priority sec-tors. Much of human capacity development, a cross-cuttin g issue, is concerned with education and train-ing at different levels and by different methods.

Another commonly found priority sector is land use management because most SADC economies are agrarian based but the quality of the land is deteriorat-ing while the population, on the other hand, is increas-ing. The relatively low levels of economic development in the region compel people to derive much of their livelihoods directly from land. The way land is man-aged affects rivers, forestry, biodiversity and climate change. Ecosystem, habitat and species biodiversity is another commonly found priority area in the region.

It is a priority because of its potential to contribute to income generation for the region: through eco-touris m, carbon sinking in the protected ecosystems and habitats, and fair use of genetic resources to ad-dress human health problems – and also because it faces many threats.

Waste and pollution is becoming another priority sector for the region because of rapid urban growth which has often not been matched with appropriate infrastructure and human capacity development. The dangers posed by waste and pollution to human and animal health have made this sector one of the major areas of concern in cities within southern Africa.

Countries that have large coastal areas and island states identify marine resources as a priority area. Whole inland states generally find inland water re-sources a priority sector. This makes inland and ma-rines resources a priority sector for the southern Af-rican region. Some of the key challenges associated with this sector are over-exploitation of the resources, difficulty to manage and enforce law and threats from human developments such as human settlement, ag-riculture, poaching and bio-piracy.

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY GAPS

The major institutional capacity gaps are associated with inter-sectoral and multi-stakeholder collabora-tion; management of the linkages in the chain of im-plementation; environmental governance; infrastruc-ture, equipment and tools; as well as the mobilisation of science, knowledge, technology and education. These institutional capacity gaps are summarised in Table 1.

INDIVIDUAL/HUMAN CAPACITY NEEDSThere is a wide range of human capacity needs in southern Africa, but this report will limit discussions to those which are connected with the commonly found priority sectors and those that are concerned with institutional capacity needs. This way, it will be practical for capacity building institutions, includ-ing SADC REEP, to make focused responses to the region’s capacity needs. The implied capacity needs from the above institutional gaps may be summarised as:

KEY CONCLUSIONS

50

Integrative skills that allow individuals to work with other sectors and other stakeholders in a participatory and symbiotic manner; Environmental leadership skills that enable individuals to move beyond their disciplines, conventional functions and responsibilities and mobilise distributed knowledge, skills and attitudes to address complex environment, sustainable development and education needs;

Resource mobilisation and accountability skills which enable individuals to identify and tap into interna-tional and local funds available for supporting fair and sustainable development; Policy development and review skills that enable in-dividuals to mainstream new developments in a co-herent and holistic manner and that provides a frame-work for different sectors to work collaboratively;

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY GAPS IN SADC

Institutional Some key elements

Inter-sectoral and multi-stakeholder collaboration

There is inadequate alignment of new and old policies and of policies, legislation and regulations that govern different sectors; low levels of cooperation between govern-ment, civil society organisations; inadequate inclusion of environmental considerations in the broad National (Economic) Plans; lack of mainstreaming of environment and sustainable development in institutional and institutional policies and programmes; poor communication and coordination between departments and ministries responsi-ble for implementing the Conventions.

Linkages along the implemen-tation chain

There are weak linkages between: planning, implementation and the human and financial resources for implementation; monitoring and evaluation, lesson learning and future strategic plans and activities; experiences on the ground and negotiations at the Conference of Parties; national and sub-national structures; policy, research and ac-tion; technology that is available on the market and capacity to absorb it; funds needed for implementing conventions and capacity to access internationally available funding for such interventions; staff responsibilities and the incentive systems.

Environmental governance

Inadequate community participation in policy and programme planning and reviews; inadequate power and capacity devolved to sub-national structures; limited tenure and user rights in communities; inequitable distribution of land; limited government regula-tory oversight difficulties which results in excess utilisation of natural resources by companies at cheap prices; lack of mechanisms to foster fair and equitable use of local and national genetic resources; inadequate capacity to deal with corruption.

Infrastructure and equipment

Most countries lack the necessary infrastructure and equipment to manage environ-mental resources sustainably. These include roads and facilities for handling sewerage management, water and sanitation, and waste and hazardous materials. Anti-poaching tools and equipment are also limited. So are technological tools and equipment for monitoring and predicting developments in the sector, including information manage-ment systems and early warning systems.

Science, knowledge and technology development

Universities and colleges are not adequately mobilising science, indigenous knowledge and knowledge to address sustainability challenges. Their curricula, research work, and community engagement activities are not trans-disciplinary enough and generally do not mainstream education for sustainable development. At the same time, there is limited specialisation in areas where predictive and integrative skills are becoming increasingly important. Inter-university/college collaboration to tap into distributed ‘expertise’ is also lacking.


51

Knowledge and values generation and brokering skills that enable individuals to draw on different ways of knowledge to address issues of technology develop-ment, environmental ethics, social and economic jus-tice; and Monitoring, evaluation and insight generation skills that allow for continuous learning and improvements that result in the improvement of practices, theories and methodologies, policies and operating contexts, including feeding into COPs.

The human skills that are needed in the priority sec-tors are summarised in Table 2. CAPACITY GAPS OF CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTIONS

Although most counties in SADC have a growing number of environmental education/ESD experts, few countries have substantive, and well integrated

environmental education policies and/or Education for Sustainable Development Strategies, and ESD is not mainstreamed into school curricula, technical and vocational education and training programmes, adult education programmes or university curricula to any great extent. In addition, countries lack robust guidelines or orientation systems for the integration of ESD into learning materials to assist citizens in un-derstanding environmental/ESD/SD concepts; this is despite the fact that many excellent materials do exist for use in learning and teaching of ESD programmes. While a few universities in the region are beginning to run environmental education/ESD programmes, only two countries have established Masters Degree Pro-grammes in environmental education/ESD (which is an indicator of strength of capacity of EE/ESD in the education and training system), even though many have established Environmental Science Depart-ments. While regional level support exists throughout the SADC programme, there are, as yet few compre-hensive capacity building programmes to address

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF MAjOR HUMAN CAPACITY NEEDS IN SADC PRIORITY SECTORS

Priority sector Key sector human capacity needsCross-cutting human capacity needs

Climate change Atmospheric sciences; Climate change model-ling, climate change adaptation; Clean technol-ogy development, absorption and use; Risk and opportunity assessment; Space science

Environmental reporting

Policy planning and review

Information,

Communication and Tech-nology

Environmental law

Law enforcement

Human resources manage-ment and retention

Mainstreaming into theory, policy and practice

Risk management

Curriculum development and implementation

Land management Agro-ecological planning and management; Integrated land use planning and management; Extension and knowledge sharing; Adaptive and integrated land planning and management

Biodiversity Biological sciences; Environmental econom-ics; Intellectual property rights; Taxonomy; Law enforcement; Biosystematics; Bio-prospecting; Bio-safety; Community based natural resources management; Biodiversity managers

Waste and pollution Environmental health and protection; Waste man-agement researchers; Rural and urban planners; Environmental engineers; Toxicologists; Landfill designers; Clean technology development

Inland and marine resources

Earth sciences; Aquatic biology; Oceanic sci-ences; Fisheries and aquaculture

KEY CONCLUSIONS

52

capacities in key institutions such as government departments, universities, teacher’s training colleges and government departments. There are, however, some efforts to sensitise teachers, teacher’s train-ing lecturers, supervisors and directors on ESD but they are dependent on donor funding. This problem is further compounded by the failure of the environ-mental sector to respond comprehensively to special-ised training needs. Universities on the other hand are seen as responding slowly to emerging sustainable development issues. Qualified personnel from these institutions are often seen as not delivering and they in turn are hampered by the numerous issues that be-set higher education institutions in Africa following its low prioritisation during and after the structural ad-justment period. Thus, while some progress has been made through the efforts of regional programmes such as the SADC REEP and associated initiatives, there is still much that needs to be done to strengthen ESD capacity at regional, and particularly at national levels. Such efforts need to be clearly and strategically directed to addressing the priority sectors for capacity identified in this report. For example, climate change is a priority issue and during the MESA workshop held in Botswana, capacity building organisations were en-couraged to:

Produce more climate change knowledge by conduct-ing research that seeks to understand climate change better; Develop/revise curricula to take into account climate change implications on different subjects and disci-plines; Develop research programmes and tools to support climate change adaptation and mitigation; Develop technologies and other innovations to ad-dress climate change adaptation and mitigation; and Contribute to the development of policy frameworks for managing climate change challenges. (Mukute, 2011)

It should be noted here that this agenda is also be-ing taken up by the Southern African Vice Chancellors Association who are producing a regional strategy for climate change research and curriculum innovation.


53

05 RECOMMENDATIONS

Although the study was commissioned by SADC REEP, the recommendations go beyond the Programme to include other key capacity development institutions and programmes in SADC as is consistent with the objectives of the study. The recommendations are or-ganised into the following five areas: Translation and review of International Agreements; Domestication of Regional Policies; Human and Institutional Capacity Development; Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting; and Regional Environmental Education and Training/ESD Institutional Development. The regional priority sectors have been identified as: Climate Change; Land Management; Marine and Inland Water Resources; Biodiversity; and Waste and Pollution. Environmental

education and training as well as Education for Sus-tainable Development form a critical and cross-cutting priority for capacity development in southern Africa. This explains why the major thrust of our recommen-dations is on EE/ESD institutions in the region, most of which have collaborated with SADC REEP, with the shared object of improving capacity for implementing international and regional environmental agreements discussed in this study.

TRANSLATION AND REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTSRegional capacity building/development institutions (including, but not limited to SADC REEP) should strategically contribute to SADC’s policy development and review processes. They can do this by:

Providing expert input on ESD and how it can be main-streamed into regional and national protocols and policy across the different sectors of environment and sustainable development, as well as into the educa-tion and training systems. This includes conducting the necessary reviews and assessments; Participating in the harmonisation of regional policies and standards setting; and Providing regional input into Pan African and interna-tional discourse on ESD and articulating SADC con-cerns and interests in relevant negotiations.

DOMESTICATION OF REGIONAL POLICIESRegional capacity development institutions (including but not limited to SADC REEP) should directly take part in the translation of regional policies and proto-cols into strategic plans, action plans and concrete examples on the ground. This entails having to:

RECOMMENDATIONS

54 Facilitate and support the development of regional strategies and action plans and programmes that are concerned with the implementation of ESD and related policy; Raise funds to support pilot programmes with poten-tial to benefit several SADC Member States; Raise funds towards the support of mainstreaming ESD in regional and national policies as well as for building capacity in ESD itself; Continue supporting the development and implemen-tation of change projects; Involve policy makers in the development and imple-mentation of change projects more strategically and directly; and Continue supporting the development and utilisation of Regional Centres of Excellence which help illustrate how multi-stakeholder partnerships can be effectively used to address complex sustainable development is-sues.

HUMAN RESOURCES AND INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY DEVELOPMENTRegional capacity building institutions such as SADC REEP should continue to provide needs-driven multi-layered human and institutional capacity services to Member States, and put more emphasis on the latter. This means that they should:

Identify and document centres of excellence and best practice in the region in order to tap into them and scale them up (e.g. SADC REEP could scale out the environmental programme for young children be-tween the age of 10-12 years in South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland); Develop and update a register of environment, sus-tainable development and education experts and or-ganisations in the region; Support the development of national structures and systems that promote education for sustainable devel-opment (e.g. National Environmental Education Cen-tres and Programmes) as part of a broader strategy for strengthening Members States and decentralisation;

Support the regular development and publication of SADC policy briefs and other kinds of learning materi-als in the three SADC official languages (English, Por-tuguese and French); Support universities and colleges in the development of ESD courses and in the mainstreaming of ESD in their curricula, including support for the development of first degree courses in ESD, and guidelines in trans-disciplinary approaches to curricula development and implementation; Continue supporting short and long term training that is informed by needs of Member States, especially on climate change education green technology develop-ment and practices. Facilitate the development of policy planning and re-view and leadership courses for policy and decision-makers and support the development of national cen-tres of ESD; and Organise periodic forums to address issues of ESD policy and practice and tap into the distributed wis-dom of civil society, academia, government and business.

MONITORING, EVALUATION (M & E) AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENTRegional capacity development institutions (includ-ing but not limited to SADC REEP) should conduct periodic monitoring and evaluation of priority sec-tors, human and institutional capacity needs, and of implementation of MEAs across environment sectors and advise key stakeholders on the outcomes of such M & E. This means that they should:

Develop monitoring and evaluation frameworks and tools to guide SADC to assess the extent to which its protocols and policies mainstream ESD; Monitor and evaluate the implementation of ESD policies and action plans within the SADC region to generate and share lessons learnt and improve future action; Monitor and evaluate the institutional arrangements of environment and sustainable development capac-ity building institutions in SADC to establish the most efficient and effective mode of operation; and


55 Document and socialise good policies, systems and practices for scaling out and up.

INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTIONSRegional capacity building organisations (including, but not limited to SADC REEP) who have key mandates for regional development of environmental education and ESD in the SADC region, should pay attention to their own institutional development, the evolving nature of engagement with SADC Secretariat, other regional and global organisations (such as UNESCO, UNEP, UNDP), SADC Member States and structures), and their visibility, role and potential for collaborative contributions. This means that they should:

Deliberately learn from other capacity development institutions in the region and beyond. In the case of SADC REEP, these would include but not be limited to the SADC Plant Genetic Resource Centre; and from the process of establishing a Centre for the Coordi-nation of Agricultural Research for Development in Southern Africa (CCARDESA); Establish strategic alliances with one another (e.g. between SADC REEP and Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research for Development in Africa –

SCARDA, ANAFE and Association for Development of Education in Africa – ADEA). The SADC REEP already has a good track record of such forms of partnership; Periodically review the manner in which they relate with SADC Secretariat and Member States so as to ensure that their profile and visibility enables them to carry out their mandate and associated strategic plans; Strategically relate with SADC FANR Directorate and relevant ministries in Member States; and Review their own human capacity needs in view of the evolving nature of its niche and thrusts (e.g. climate change has become an important social-ecological is-sues but it was not so 15 years ago).

Finally, SADC Secretariat should enhance a culture and practice of inter-directorate and inter-unit col-laboration and co-implementation of complementary activities, EE/ESD projects and programmes. This should be accompanied by the establishment and im-plementation of clearer and more effective communi-cation mechanisms and practices. At a higher level, this calls for the mainstreaming of EE/ESD in SADC’s Education and Human Development policy.

REFERENCES

56

REFERENCES

AFRICA CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION. (2011). Africa capacity indicators 2011: Capacity development in fragile environments. Harare: Africa Capacity Building Foundation.

ASHTON, P. & RAMASAR, V. (2001). Water and HIV/AIDS: Some strategic considerations in Southern Africa. Pretoria: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).

CHIUNDAMA, M. (2008). An Overview of the state of the environmental movement in Zambia: A status report. Lusaka: Norwegian Development Fund & Harvest Help.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, Ministry of Environment of Nature and Tourism. (2010). Draft Readiness Plan for REDD. Kinshasa: Government of the Republic of Congo.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, Re-public of South Africa. (2010). Environmental Sectors Skills Plan for South Africa: A systems approach to human capacity development and sectors skills plan-ning. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs.

DESERT RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF NAMIBIA. (2001). Energy in Namibia. Retrieved 22 July 2011, from http://www.drfn.info/docs/cbend/energy_factsheets/energy_in_nam.pdf

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY. (2009). Project proposal: Building the capacity of the agriculture sector in DR Congo to plan for and respond to the additional threats by climate change on food production and security. Washington: GEF.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY, GOVERNMENT OF DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO AND UNDP. (2007). Project proposal on legal and institutional capacity-building to combat land degradation and deforestation in Democratic Republic of Congo. Kinshasa & New York: UNDP & Government of the Republic of Congo.

GOVERNMENT OF ANGOLA & UNDP. (2005). Millen-nium Development Goals Report Summary. Luanda and New York: Government of Angola and UNDP.

GOVERNMENT OF BOTSWANA, (2007). Second Country Assessment Report for Botswana, 2007 Final Report. Gaborone: United Nations System in Botswana.

GOVERNMENT OF BOTSWANA & UNDP. (2010). Millennium Development Goals Status Report 2010. Gaborone: Government of Botswana and UNDP.

GOVERNMENT OF LESOTHO, National Environment Secretariat (NES). (2000). Biological Diversity in Lesotho. Maseru: NES.

GOVERNMENT OF LESOTHO. (2003). Draft Millen-nium Development Goals status report, 2003 for the Kingdom of Lesotho: The war against HIV/AIDS. Maser u: Government of Lesotho.

GOVERNMENT OF LESOTHO. (2007). NCSA Project: National Capacity Development Action Plan to Imple-ment the Rio Convention and related Multilateral Environmental Agreements in Lesotho. Maseru: Gov-ernment of Lesotho.

GOVERNMENT OF MALAWI. (2007). Capacity As-sessment Report and Action Plan for Environmental Capacity Development: Final Draft Report. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi.

GOVERNMENT OF MALAWI, Ministry of Development Planning and Cooperation. (2010). Malawi Millennium Development Goals Report. Lilongwe: Ministry of Planning and Cooperation.

GOVERNMENT OF NAMIBIA. (2004). Millennium Development Goals Report. Windhoek: Government of Namibia.

GOVERNMENT OF NAMIBIA. (2005). Namibia’s Na-tional Capacity Self Assessment for Global Environ-


57 mental Management Final Report, March 2005. Wind-hoek: Government of Namibia.

GOVERNMENT OF NAMIBIA. (2007). Namibia Min-istry of Mines and Energy Annual Report, 2007-2008. Windhoek: Government of Namibia.

GOVERNMENT OF NAMIBIA & UNDP. (2002). Na-mibia’s National Assessment for the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002. Windhoek: Govern-ment of Namibia & UNDP.

GOVERNMENT OF MOZAMBIQUE. (2005). Report on the Millennium Development Goals. Maputo: Govern-ment of Mozambique.

GOVERNMENT OF MOZAMBIQUE, Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Affairs – MICOA. (2008). National Capacity Self-Assessment Action Plan. Maputo: Government of Mozambique.

GOVERNMENT OF MOZAMBIQUE, Ministry of Plan-ning and Development. (2010). Report on the Millen-nium Development Goals. Maputo: Government of Mozambique.

GOVERNMENT OF SEYCHELLES. (2005). National Capacit y Self Assessment Report. Victoria, Mahe: Government of Seychelles.

GOVERNMENT OF SEYCHELLES, UNDP & GEF. (2011). Ensuring Environmental Sustainability for Seychelles. Victoria, Mahe: GOS/UNDP/GEF Programme Coordi-nation Unit.

GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (2005). National Capacity Self Assessment Report, 2005. Pretoria: Gov-ernment of South Africa.

GOVERNMENT OF SWAZILAND. (2004). National Capacity Needs Constraints and Priorities for the Implementation of the Climate Change, Desertification and Biodiversity Conventions: National Capacity Self-Assessment Mid-Term Report 2004. Mbabane: Government of Swaziland.

GOVERNMENT OF SWAZILAND. (2005). National Capacity Needs, Constraints and Priorities for the Implementation of the Climate Change, Desertification and Biodiversity Conventions: National Capacity Self-

Assessment Final Report 2005. Mbabane: Government of Swaziland.

GOVERNMENT OF SWAZILAND. (2010). Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, (2010), Swazi-land Millennium Development Goals Progress Report 2010. Mbabane: Ministry of Economic Planning and Development.

GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBIA. (2007). National Capacity Self Assessment Report (NCSA) for Global Environ-mental Management Report. Lusaka: Government of Zambia.

GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBIA. (2008). Zambia Millen-nium Development Goals, Progress Report, 2008. Lusaka: Government of Zambia.

GOVERNMENT OF ZIMBABWE (2006). Zimbabwe National Capacity Self Assessment Report, 2006. Min-istry of Environment and Tourism, Harare.

HARTS C. & SMITH, C. (2008). Namibia’s greenhouse gas inventory for year 2000: Final submission 2008. Windhoek: Ministry of Environment and Tourism.

INTERNATIONAL MONITORING FUND (IMF). (2007). Implementation Strategy for Multi-lateral Environment Agreements, Final Report. Washington: IMF.

INTERNATIONAL MONITORING FUND (IMF). (2010). Democratic Republic of the Congo: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper – Progress Report: IMF Country Report No. 10/328. Washington: IMF.

KETLHOILWE, M.J. (2011). Roles of universities in mainstreaming sustainability and environment. Paper presented at the Mainstream Sustainability and Envi-ronment in African Universities and Colleges at Oasis Hotel in Gaborone, Botswana, 19-22 September 2011.

KISAKA, J.N. MANYATI, M., TJINGAETE, R. & CHIDUWA, C. (2011). Report on capacity building through training and institutional strengthening to enhance the Ministry of Environment and Tourism capacity to implement provisions of the three Rio Conventions (CBD, UNCCD and UNFCCC): Rio Con-ventions training and capacity building strategy and action plan (RC TC-SAP) training toolkit and aware-ness materials. Windhoek: Government of Namibia.

REFERENCES

58 LOTZ, H. (1999). Developing curriculum frameworks: A source book for developing Environmental Educa-tion among adult learners – An enabling orientation. Howick: SADC Regional Environmental Education Programme.

MAKHIBA T. (2006). Draft Hazardous Waste Manage-ment Report and Legislation (Bill and Regulations). Maseru: Government of Lesotho.

MANDA, M.A.Z. (2008). Water and sanitation in urban Malawi: Can the Millennium Development Goals be met? A study of informal settlements in three cities. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

MATIZA, A. & VIRIRI, M. (2006). Environmental Statistics in Zimbabwe. A Country Paper for the Environment Statistics Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 16-20 July 2007.

MATIZA-CHIUTA, T., SANYANGA, A. & NYATSANZA, F. (2010). The SADC Biodiversity Action Plan: Building wealth and livelihoods through biodiversity conservation and management. Harare: WATENN Consulting.

MFUNE, J.K. (2009). Proposed climate change strategy and action plan. Windhoek: Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Government of Namibia.

MFUNE, J.K. & NDOMBO, B. (2005). An Assessment of the capacity and needs required to implement Article 6 of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Namibia. Windhoek: Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Government of Namibia.

MHUKA, P. (2011). “Met Services seeks standards cer-tification”. Business Herald, Wednesday, 1 June 2011, Harare, Zimbabwe.

MOSENENE, L. (2002). Lesotho farmer initiative: Machobane Farming System. (Unpublished). Maseru: MADF.

MUGABE, J., MAYA, S., TATA, T. & IMBAMBA, S. (2000). Capacity development initiative. Country capacity development needs and priorities – Regional report for Africa. New York: GEF-UNDP Strategic Partnership, UNDP.

NEPAD. (2003). Action Plan for the Environment Initia-tive (2003). Midrand, South Africa: UNEP, AMCEN, GEF.

NHAMO, G. (2003). Institutional and Legal Provisions for Environmental Management in Zimbabwe. AJEAM-RAGEE, Volume 7, November 2003, 14-20.

MUKUTE, M. (2011). Notes on inclusion of climate change in higher education practices. A paper pre-sented at the Mainstream Sustainability and Environ-ment in African Universities and Colleges at Oasis Hotel in Gaborone, Botswana, 19-22 September 2011.

PESANAYI, T. (2011). Preparing communities for global change impacts and adaptation: What role can universities and colleges play? A paper presented at the Mainstream Sustainability and Environment in African Universities and Colleges at Oasis Hotel in Gaborone, Botswana, 19-22 September 2011.

PRETTY, J. N. (1995). Regenerating agriculture: Poli-cies and practice/or sustainability and self-reliance. London/Washington: Earthscan Publications/Nation-al Academy Press.

REPUBLIC OF ANGOLA, Ministry of Environment. (2009). Framework Report on Angola’s Biodiversity. Luanda: Government of Angola.

REPUBLIC OF ANGOLA & UNDP. (2005). Angola Millennium Development Goals Summary 2005. Luanda: Government of Angola and UNDP.

REPUBLIC OF ANGOLA, Ministry of Fisheries and En-vironment. (2002). Report to the Committee for the re-view of the implementation of the Convention to Com-bat Desertification. Luanda: Government of Angola.

REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS. (2004). First National Re-port of the Republic of Mauritius to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Port Louis: Government of Mauritius.

REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. (2011). Green Paper: Towards a national policy for a sustainable Mauritius. Port Louis: Government of Mauritius.

REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and Ministry of Environment


59 and National Development Unit. (2005). National Capacity Needs Self Assessment for Global Envi-ronmental Management. Port Louis: Government of Mauritius.

SADC RISDP. (2004). SADC Regional Indicative Strate-gic Development Plan. Gaborone: SADC.

SADC. (2008). Southern Africa Environment Outlook Report. Gaborone/Harare/Nairobi: SADC/SARDC-IM-ERCSA/IUCN/UNEP.

SADC REEP. (2010). SADC REEP Annual Report for 2010. Howick: SADC REEP.

SWAZILAND ENVIRONMENT AUTHORITY. (2009). Swaziland’s fourth national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Mbabane: SEA.

TARR, P. (2003). Emission standards: Environment Impact Assessment in Southern Africa, a SAIEA Pub-lication. Funded by DANIDA, SAIEA 2003, Windhoek (www.saiea.com).

UNDP. (2008a). Retrieved 20 June 2011, from http://undpwatch.blogspot.com/2008/09/another-undp-pro-curement-fiasco-at.html

UNDP. (2008b). A review of poverty and inequality in Namibia. Retrieved 20 June 2011, from http://www.undp.org.na/poverty-reduction.aspx

UNDP. (2009). UNDP Country Sector Assessments. UNDP GOAL Wash Programme, Governance, Advoca-cy and Leadership for water, Sanitation, and Hygiene, Volume 1, Zambia.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF. (2010). National Self Capacity Assessment: Results and Lessons for Global Sustain-ability. Nairobi: UNDP.

UNEP. (2002). Africa Environment Outlook, Past, Present and Future Perspectives. Nairobi: UNEP.

UNEP. (2010). Draft country document for Seychelles, (2007-2010). Nairobi: UNDP.

UNEP. (2011). Water Issues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Challenges and Opportunities. Technical Report. Nairobi: UNEP.

UNESCO. (2005). The United Nations Decade for Edu-cation for Sustainable Development: International Implementing Scheme. Retrieved 1 September 2011, from www.unesco.org.

UNEP & UNESCO. (2005). Strategy and action plan for the survival of the great apes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. UNEP & UNESCO: Nairobi Great Apes Survival Project.

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA. Division of Envi-ronment. (2007). National Capacity Self- Assessment Report and Action Plan for the Implementation of Post Rio Conventions. Dar es Salaam: Government of Tanzania.

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA. (2008). Millen-nium Development Goals: Mid way Evaluation. Dar es Salaam: Government of Tanzania, Government of Tanzania.

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG, Department of Economics. (2008). Democratic Republic of Congo – Environmental and Climate Change Policy Brief. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.

YARON, G., MANGANI, R., MLAVA, J., KAMBEWA, P., MAKUNGWA, S., MTETHIWA, A., MUNTHALI, S., MGOOLA, W., & KAZAMBE, J. (2011). Economic Anal-ysis of Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Malawi. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi.

ZUNCKEL , M., TSHUKUDU, T., CHIMPHAMBA, J., MAURE, G., JACKSON, M., MUGARA, R., & CHIPUNDU, B. (n.d.) Scoping Report Air Quality Modelling Activities in Southern Africa and the Feasibility of a Region. Pretoria: CSIR.

LIST OF PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED

60

ANNEX 1LIST OF PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT(BY COUNTRY)

NAME OF PARTICIPANT ORGANISATION

Angola

1 Vladimir Russo Ministry of Environment

Botswana

2 Alex Banda SADC Secretariat

3 Nyambe Nyambe SADC Secretariat

4 Patrick Tawonezvi CCARDESA

5 Martin Muchero SADC Secretariat

6 Joyce Macala SCARDA

7 Desmond Tshotelo City Council, Gaborone

8 Gabatshwane Tsayang University of Botswana

9 Greg Kamwendo University of Botswana

10 Hanani Motlhabane University of Botswana

11 Kabita Bose University of Botswana

12 Keoleboge Malala University of Botswana

13 M J Ketlhoilwe University of Botswana

14 Koketso Ramoonwa University of Botswana

15 Linnet K. Nyandoro Department of Environmental Affairs

16 Charles Musarurwa University of Botswana

17 Mary Letsholo University of Botswana

18 Modise Mosotwane University of Botswana

19 Nthalivi Silo University of Botswana

20 Patricia Morewagae University of Botswana

21 Chengedzani Masheto Department of Environmental Affairs

22 Dorcas Phirie TTLD

23 Wibke Thies SADC Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation

Democratic Republic of Congo

24 Oscar Akka Environment/ Nature Conservation

25 Fréderick Ipani Observer Newspaper


61


26 Charles Kabongo Congolese Media Agency

27 John Minanga Radio Sango Malamu

28 Oscar Oswek Liberty Radio

29 Don Pierrot Kitanu RTV Venus

30 Lisaka Idi Radio RCMI

31 Georgette Mukwa Radio Tomisa

32 Gabriel Mputu Africa News

33 Badylon Kawanda Prosperity

34 Joseph Kipulu RTNC

35 Alpha Kimbiti RTNC

36 Emmanuel Kapete Soba/NGO

37 Léopold Kumeso Soba/NGO

38 Valio Odio Temperate Climate

39 Fabien Kambinzi Radio Okapi

40 Charles Kalangoso Environmental Coordination

41 Tshiboko Pyko Re-Launch newspaper

42 Dominique Intinga Vari Vari PSI/Kikwit (Geography Dept Environmental Management)

43 Fumu Mako Mayoko Franaki (Civil Society)

44 Sandra Malu Kabong Kimpangi newspaper

45 Joel Mayuyu Franaki

46 Aurelie Mandabi Soba/NGO

47 Ambur Opey Town Hall

48 Cyrille Kiyungu Town Hall

49 Cyrille Muwata ARPK/NGO

50 Nkwanba Kingonzi Minagri/RNEE-RDC

51 Marc Midi Paillasse/RNEE-RDC

52 Nta’kwa Zelia RRN/KKT

53 Epang ISP/KKT

54 Fofana Kimbwasa Ministry of INT and FRANAKI

Lesotho

55 Kenenoe Lehloenya Lesotho Agric. Education

56 Polile A. Molumeli University of Lesotho

57 Lemohang Mtshali Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture

58 Lisebo Motjotji Department of Environment


62


Malawi

59 Baird Chilora Malawi College of Fisheries

60 Winnie Tsaka Malawi College of Fisheries

61 Kennedy Katikwiri Malawi College of Fisheries

62 Dyna Chemula Malawi College of Fisheries

63 Mathews Chirwa Malawi College of Fisheries

64 Andrew Saukani Malawi College of Fisheries

65 Dick Kachilonda SADC REEP

66 Enwood Mogha Malawi College of Fisheries

67 Doris Msukwa Malawi College of Fisheries

68 Nevarson Msusa Deputy Principal - Malawi College of Fisheries

69 Steve Wemba Malawi College of Fisheries

70 Thomas Mkandawire Central East Education Division

71 Violet Mayaya Butawo Central East Education Division

72 Isabel Ngwira Mwage Central East Education Division

73 Gift Kamwangathole Malawi College of Forestry and Wildlife

74 Patterson Wildlife and Environment Society of Malawi

75 Edward Missanjo Malawi College of Forestry and Wildlife

76 Edward Kalua Karonga Teachers’ Training College

77 Chris Nyasa Acting Principal Malawi College of Fisheries

78 Sorstein Chiota University of Malawi

79 Coster Lupafya Karonga Teachers’ Training College

80 Leonard Nyirenda Karonga Teachers’ Training College

81 Lloyd Kaugale Malawi College of Fisheries

82 Symon Mkwinda Department of Land Resources and Evaluation

83 Clement Takiwa Department of Environmental Affairs

84 A.M. Kamperewera Environmental Affairs

85 Mulela UNSECO - National Office

86 Thomas Mkandawire Central East Education Division

87 Gift Kamwangathole Malawi College of Forestry and Wildlife

88 Coster Lupafya Karonga Teachers’ Training College

Mauritius

89 Vimla Kanhye Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development


63


Mozambique

90 Sónia da Silveira National Directorate for Environmental Promotion

Namibia

91 Ellen Simataa Ministry of Environment and Tourism

92 Lesley Losper Ministry of Environment and Tourism

Seychelles

93 Delcy Education Department

94 Shane Emilie Education Department

95. Elva Gedeon Education Department

96 Elvina Henriette University of Seychelles

97 Indra Persaud University of Seychelles

98 Alex Souffe University of Seychelles

99 Rachel Onezime University of Seychelles

100 Didier Dogley Environment Department

101 Jeanette Larue Environment Department

102 Brenda Andimignon Environment Department

103 Mermedah Moustache Department of Natural Resources

104 Michele Martin Sustainability for Seychelles (S4S)

105 Maria Brioche Seychelles Islands Foundation (SIF)

106 Mr Martin Nature Seychelles

107 Victorin Laboudallon Terrestrial Restoration Actions Society for Seychelles

108 Mr Barry Landscape and Waste Management Agency (LWMA)

109 Guilly Moustache Energy Commission

110 Andrew Jean Vauis Energy Commission

111 Barbara Carolus-Andre United Nations Development Programme

South Africa

112 Heila Lotz-Sisitka Rhodes University

113 Eureta Rosenberg Biodiversity HCD

114 Tichaona Pesanayi SADC REEP

115 Dick Kachilonda SADC REEP

116 Caleb Mandikonza SADC REEP

117 Sally Cumming SADC REEP

118 Jim Taylor WESSA

119 Mumsie Gumede WESSA


64


120 Liz Taylor WESSA

121 Shanu Misser Delta Environment Centre

122 Godwell Nhamo University of South Africa

123 Nola Redelinghugs University of Free State

124 Mary Hlengwa Rhodes University

Swaziland

125 Dr Allen Swaziland Environment Authority

126 Mr Vilakati Swaziland Environment Authority

127 V. Simelamo Swaziland Environment Authority

128 M. Dlamini Swaziland Environment Authority

129 Mboni Dlamini Swaziland Environment Authority

130 Dumille Sithole Swaziland Environment Authority

131 Bianca Dlamini Swaziland Environment Authority

132 Melusi Mbuli Swaziland Environment Authority

133 C. Mhlanga Swaziland Environment Authority

134 Gcina Dladla Swaziland Environment Authority

135 Solomon Gamedze Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs

136 Emmanuel Dlamini Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs

137 E.S. Seyama Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs

138 Duduzile Nlengethwa-Masine Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs

139 Edmund Dhlamini Ministry of Health

140 Mulamuli Dlamini Swaziland National Trust Commission

141 Titus Dlamini Swaziland National Trust Commission

142 Bheki Thusi Swaziland National Trust Commission

143 Dumisani Mngometulu Ministry of Agriculture – Land

144 Rox Brown Ministry of Agriculture – Land

145 Bonface Makhubu Ministry of Agriculture

146 Peterson V. Dlamini Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy

147 M. Mguni Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy

148 Sakiwe Nkomo Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy – Water Affairs

149 Edward Mwane Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy

150 Magdale Thwala Ministry of Environment and Tourism

151 Gugu Mtimukhulu Renewable Energy Association of Swaziland

152 Angus Mcleod SAS


65


153 S. Mamba First Environment Consultant

154 D. Mhlungu Swazi Hazmat

155 Thobile Khumalo MTK Sustainable Technologies

156 Patience Mamba Usutu Forest Products

157 Welcome Dlamini City Council – Mbabane

158 Thandi Khumalo University of Swaziland

159 Mandla Mlipha University of Swaziland

160 Constance Dlamini Swaziland Environment Authority

161 Peter Inampasa SADC ESD

Tanzania

162 Lordick Mokobi Ministry of Education, Botswana

163 Ellen Simataa Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia

164 Joyce Omold National Environmental Management Council

165 Paul Kalokola National Environmental Management Council

166 Magreth Nderumaki Kifai Modern Secondary School

167 Jacinta D. Assey Majani Yachai Secondary School

168 Bartholomew D. Tarimo National Environment Management Council

169 Joachim M. Shekiangio Wildlife Conservation Society

170 Mary Watugulu Institute of Adult Education

171 Vestina Victor Gezaulole Primary School

172 Martha Ngalowera Vice President’s Office, Division of Environment

173 Elizabeth A. Mrema Ministry of Lands

174 Enezael Ayo DSM City Council

175 Neema Rugemalira The Guardian

176 Julius Ningu Environment, Vice President’s Office

Zambia

177 Mvdenda Steriah Simooya University of Zambia

178 Evaristo Kalumba Mufulira College of Education

179 Chama Mwansa Environmental Council of Zambia

180 Manoah Muchanga University of Zambia

181 Fidelis Muzyamba University of Zambia

Zimbabwe

182 Steady Kangata National Environment Management Authority

183 Vitalis Chadenga Department of Parks and Wildlife


66


184 Mutsa Chasi National Environment Management Authority

185 Petronella Shoko National Environment Management Authority

186 Andrew J.P. Sibanda National University of Science and Technology

187 Jackson Musonza Madziwa Teachers College

188 Bamusi Enock Madziwa Teachers College

189 Mashumba Abraham Ministry of Higher Education and Technology

190 Miriam Mufema Belvedere Teachers Training College

191 Emily Ndlovu Gweru Polytechnic

192 Caroline Zinyemba Hillside Teachers College

193 Milton Dlovu Hillside Teachers College

194 Cairo Mahere Gweru Polytechnic

195 Lovemore Kusure Bindura University of Science Education

196 Noel Ndumeya Belvedere Teachers Training College

197 Iris J.M Chimbodza Belvedere Teachers Training College

198 Fanue Manyinyire Belvedere Teachers Training College

199 Beatrice Msindo VVOB

200 Farirai R. Magadzire Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources Management

201 Stella Kakono Zimbabwe National Commission for UNESCO

202 Rosalina Maponga UNESCO Harare Cluster Office

203 Moffat Nyamangara Ministry of Agriculture-Agriculture Education

204 Charles Jonga CAMPFIRE Association

205 René Czudek FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation)

206 Maxwell Phiri Forestry Commission

207 Abedinigo Marufu Forestry Commission

208 Professor Feresu Institute of Environmental Studies

209 Stella Musiiwa IUCN

210 M. Tinago Zimbabwe National Water Supply Authority

211 Chamunoda Zambuko Metrological Services Department

212 Mercy Ndoro Women's University in Africa

213 Catherine Sibanda University of Zimbabwe


67

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The consultants who conducted this study owe a lot to many people who contributed to the study in many com-plementary ways. In particular, we would like to thank:

SADC REEP management (Tichaona Pesanayi, Sally Cumming, Dick Kachilonda and Caleb Mandikonza) for their guidance and support and for organising the logistics; WESSA Executive Director, Mumsie Gumede and WESSA Director of Environmental Education, Jim Taylor for providing an enabling working arrangement and for providing useful feedback; SADC Secretariat senior officers, especially Alex Banda and Nyambe Nyambe for providing us with opportuni-ties to generate data from them and to attend the Regional Workshop of Directors of Environment, Forestry and Wildlife; SADC Member States Directors and environmental lawyers, who attended an Environment and Natural Resources Protocol workshop in Johannesburg, South Africa, from 9-11 May 2011 and SADC REEP National EE Network Representatives; SADC REEP National Representatives in all the 13 countries who attended the Annual National EE Network representatives meeting and Environmental Education Association for Southern Africa Conference that were held in Maseru, Lesotho from 1-4 October 2011; The SADC REEP National Representatives of the countries we visited during the study, for organising and sup-porting workshops and meetings; Mainstreaming Environmental Sustainability in African Universities and Colleges Chairman in southern Africa, M.J. Ketlhoilwe who hosted the regional MESA workshop which focused on Climate Change Education; All interviewees, workshop participants and respondents; Report reviewers, Heila Lotz-Sisitka and Tichaona Pesanayi; and The sponsors of the capacity assessment, the Swedish Government (through Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency – Sida).

Mutizwa Mukute, Tafadzwa Marange and Christopher Masara

Date post:	26-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME · development and education agreements. The capac-ity...

Documents